[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              IS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? YOU BE THE JUDGE

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is 
like the weather--everybody talks about the weather but nobody does 
anything about it. And congress talks a good game about bringing 
Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control, but there are too 
many Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who 
unfailingly find all sorts of excuses for voting to defeat proposals 
for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget.
  As of Wednesday, July 13, at the close of business, the Federal debt 
stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,624,337,130,856.67. This debt, 
mind you, was run up by the Congress of the United States; the big-
spending bureaucrats in the executive branch of the U.S. Government 
cannot spend a dime that has not first been authorized and appropriated 
by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution is quite specific about 
that, as every schoolboy is supposed to know.
  And disregard the nonsense from politicians to the effect that the 
Federal debt was run up by one President or another, depending on party 
affiliation. Sometimes they say Ronald Reagan ran it up; sometimes they 
say George Bush. I even heard that Jimmy Carter helped run it up. All 
three suggestions are wrong. They are false because the Congress of the 
United States is the villain.
  Most people cannot conceive of a billion of anything, let alone a 
trillion. It may provide a bit of perspective to bear in mind that a 
billion seconds ago, Mr. President, the Cuban Missile Crisis was going 
on. A billion minutes ago, not many years had elapsed since Christ was 
crucified.
  That sort of puts it in perspective, does it not, that Congress has 
run up a Federal debt of 4,624 of those billions--of dollars. In other 
words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stands at 4 trillion, 624 
billion, 337 million, 130 thousand, 856 dollars and 67 cents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to yield 
10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, with the 
floor then reverting to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont.
  Mr. President, I had come to the floor at 10 o'clock in hopes that I 
might be able to offer an amendment which I have pending on the foreign 
operations bill, which has been accepted by the managers, and in the 
absence of formally starting on the bill or absence of one of the 
managers. I thank my colleague from Vermont for the time to speak on 
the amendment, perhaps there will be a procedural posture to be 
accepted before the 10 minutes have expired.
  This amendment, Mr. President, would condition appropriations from 
the United States to the PLO on their strict compliance with their 
commitments in the Israel PLO peace accords.
  We have found that since the historic events of September 13 of last 
year when President Clinton brought together the Prime Minister of 
Israel Yitzhak Rabin, and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, the progress has 
proceeded and the agreement entered into. But there have been many 
violations of the agreement by acts of terrorism by the PLO.
  Speaking very candidly, Mr. President, it was a difficult moment for 
me personally to be at the White House last September 13, to see Yasser 
Arafat and the PLO honored in the Nation's capital in light of what 
they have done in the past. The record is plain that the murder of the 
U.S. Charge, the second in command in the Sudan in 1974, directly 
implicated Yasser Arafat as well as the PLO; the murder of Mr. 
Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro involved the PLO and Arafat, as have 
many, many other acts of treachery and terrorism. So it was a difficult 
moment to see Arafat honored at the White House.
  But when the State of Israel, which had been the principle victim of 
PLO terrorism, agreed to that arrangement it seemed to me that the 
United States ought to be supportive, and I compliment President 
Clinton for what he has done in that historic setting. But since the 
accords have been entered into there have been repeated acts of PLO 
terrorism. They have been documented, and a good bit of the 
documentation has come from the Zionist Organization of America and the 
initiative of Mr. Morton Klein and Mrs. Sandy Stein.
  It is vital that if the United States is to advance the substantial 
funding which we have appropriated, that there be compliance. This 
amendment which has been cosponsored by Senator Shelby, Senator 
D'Amato, Senator Craig, and Senator Graham, would remove the authority 
of the President to advance the funds on certification of national 
security. That is, the President would not have the power to excuse 
what the PLO has done and allow the funds to be advanced without full 
compliance.
  The second provision would recite the expectation of the Congress 
that the PLO will remove all of the provisions in its national covenant 
which state its intention to eliminate Israel.
  In an original form, we had thought and drafted and proposed that the 
charter of the PLO be amended in advance of any moneys being given by 
the United States to the PLO. On reconsideration, we have noted that 
after this amendment was announced, there have been statements from the 
PLO that they do intend to amend their charter. So that in order to 
avoid a controversy and to proceed at this time with a clear-cut 
statement of congressional intent, this amendment just goes so far as 
to say that it is our expectation that the covenants of the PLO charter 
will be amended.
  If that is not done, let there be no mistake that we will be back on 
the next foreign aid bill with the mandatory requirement that the PLO 
covenant be amended if any funds are to be advanced.
  There are a number of provisions of the PLO covenant which bear on 
this question.
  For example, article 15 of the Palestinian National Covenant from 
1968 recites:

       The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a 
     national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion 
     from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist 
     presence from Palestine.

  Obviously, that is a direct variance with the Israeli-Arab peace 
accord and that ought to be stricken.
  Article 19 provides, in part:

       The partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment 
     of Israel is fundamentally null and void.

  That, obviously, must be stricken.
  Article 20 contains the provision:

       The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate Document, and what has 
     been based upon them are considered null and void. The claim 
     of a historical or spiritual tie between Jews and Palestine 
     does not tally with the historical realities nor the 
     constituents of statehood in their true sense.

  And that ought to be stricken.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
Palestinian National Covenant be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks, along with an article from the New York Times 
on this subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there has been established in both the 
Senate and the House of Representatives monitoring groups. In the 
Senate, we have a group of some 15 Senators, virtually equally divided 
among Democrats and Republicans. It is our intent to keep a very close 
eye on what occurs with respect to PLO compliance with their 
commitments. If the terrorism is not absolutely ended, then there is no 
reason whatsoever for the United States to be advancing funds to the 
PLO. That is a very, very reasonable request.

                               Exhibit 1

                The Palestinian National Covenant, 1968

       This Covenant will be called ``The Palestinian National 
     Covenant'' (Al-Mihaq Al-Watani Al-Filastini).


                               article 1

       Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people 
     and an integral part of the great Arab homeland, and the 
     people of Palestine is a part of the Arab Nation.


                               article 2

       Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of 
     the British Mandate is an integral regional unit.


                               article 3

       The Palestinian Arab people possesses the legal right to 
     its homeland, and when the liberation of its homeland is 
     completed it will exercise self-determination solely 
     according to its own will and choice.


                               article 4

       The Palestinian personality is an innate, persistent 
     characteristic that does not disappear, and it is transferred 
     from fathers to sons. The Zionist occupation, and the 
     dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people as result of the 
     disasters which came over it, do not deprive it of its 
     Palestinian personality and affiliation and do not nullify 
     them.


                               article 5

       The Palestinians are the Arab citizens who were living 
     permanently in Palestine until 1947, whether they were 
     expelled from there or remained. Whoever is born to a 
     Palestinian Arab father after this date, within Palestine or 
     outside it, is a Palestinian.


                               article 6

       Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the 
     beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered 
     Palestinians.


                               article 7

       The Palestinian affiliation and the material, spiritual and 
     historical tie with Palestine are permanent realities. The 
     upbringing of the Palestinian individual in an Arab and 
     revolutionary fashion, the undertaking of all means of 
     forging consciousness and training the Palestinian, in order 
     to acquaint him profoundly with his homeland, spiritually and 
     materially, and preparing him for the conflict and the armed 
     struggle, as well as for the sacrifice of his property and 
     his life to restore his homeland, until the liberation--all 
     this is a national duty.


                               article 8

       The phase in which the people of Palestine is living is 
     that of the national (Watani) struggle for the liberation of 
     Palestine. Therefore, the contradictions among the 
     Palestinian national forces are of a secondary order which 
     must be suspended in the interest of the fundamental 
     contradiction between Zionism and colonialism on the one side 
     and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis, 
     the Palestinian masses, whether in the homeland or in places 
     of exile (Mahajir), organizations and individuals, comprise 
     one national front which acts to restore Palestine and 
     liberate it through armed struggle.


                               article 9

       Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine and is 
     therefore a strategy and not tactics. The Palestinian Arab 
     people affirms its absolute resolution and abiding 
     determination to pursue the armed struggle and to march 
     forward toward the armed popular revolution, to liberate its 
     homeland and return to it, [to maintain] its right to a 
     natural life in it, and to exercise its right of self-
     determination in it and sovereignty over it.


                               article 10

       Fedayeen action forms the nucleus of the popular 
     Palestinian war of liberation. This demands its promotion, 
     extension and protection, and the mobilization of all the 
     mass and scientific capacities of the Palestinians, their 
     organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian 
     revolution, and cohesion in the national (Watani) struggle 
     among the various groups of the people of Palestine, and 
     between them and the Arab masses, to guarantee the 
     continuation of the revolution, its advancement and victory.


                               article 11

       The Palestinians will have three mottoes: National 
     (Wataniyya) unity, national (Qawmiyya) mobilization and 
     liberation.


                               article 12

       The Palestinian Arab people believes in Arab unity. In 
     order to fulfill its role in realizing this, it must 
     preserve, in this phase of its national (Watani) struggle, 
     its Palestinian personality and the constituents thereof 
     increase consciousness of its existence and resist any plan 
     that tends to disintegrate or weaken it.


                               article 13

       Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two 
     complementary aims. Each one paves the way for realization of 
     the other. Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, 
     and the liberation leads to Arab unity. Working for both goes 
     hand in hand.


                               article 14

       The destiny of the Arab nation, indeed the very Arab 
     existence, depends upon the destiny of the Palestine issue. 
     The endeavor and effort of the Arab nation to liberate 
     Palestine follows from this connection. The people of 
     Palestine assumes its vanguard role in realizing this sacred 
     national (Qawmi) aim.


                               article 15

       The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a 
     national (Qawmi) duty to repulse the Zionist, imperialist 
     invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the 
     Zionist presence from Palestine. Its full responsibilities 
     fall upon the Arab nation, peoples and governments, with the 
     Palestinian Arab people at their head.
       For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its 
     military, human, material and spiritual capabilities to 
     participate actively with the people of Palestine. They must, 
     especially in the present stage of armed Palestinian 
     revolution, grant and offer the people of Palestine all 
     possible help and every material and human support, and 
     afford it every sure means and opportunity enabling it to 
     continue to assume its vanguard role in pursuing its armed 
     revolution until the liberation of its homeland.


                               article 16

       The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual viewpoint, 
     will prepare an atmosphere of tranquility and peace for the 
     Holy Land, in the shade of which all the holy places will be 
     safeguarded, and freedom of worship and visitation to all 
     will be guaranteed, without distinction or discrimination of 
     race, color, language or religion. For this reason, the 
     people of Palestine looks to the support of all the spiritual 
     forces in the world.


                               article 17

       The liberation of Palestine, from a human viewpoint, will 
     restore to the Palestinian man this dignity, glory and 
     freedom. For this, the Palestinian Arab people looks to the 
     support of those in the world who believes in the dignity and 
     freedom of man.


                               article 18

       The liberation of Palestine, from an international 
     viewpoint, is a defensive act necessitated by the 
     requirements of self-defense. For this reason, the people of 
     Palestine, desiring to befriend all peoples, looks to the 
     support of the states which love freedom, justice and peace 
     in restoring the legal situation to Palestine, establishing 
     security and peace in its territory, and enabling its people 
     to exercise national (Wataniyya) sovereignty and national 
     (Qawmiyya) freedom.


                               article 19

       The partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment 
     of Israel is fundamentally null and void, whatever time has 
     elapsed, because it was contrary to the wish of the people of 
     Palestine and its natural right to its homeland, and 
     contradicts the principles embodied in the Charter of the 
     United Nations, the first of which is the right of self-
     determination.


                               article 20

       The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate Document, and what has 
     been based upon them are considered null and void. The claim 
     of a historical or spiritual tie between Jews and Palestine 
     does not tally with historical realities nor with 
     the constituents of statehood in their true sense) 
     Judaism, in its character as a religion of revelation, is 
     not a nationality with an independent existence. Likewise, 
     the Jews are not one people with an independent 
     personality. They are rather citizens of the states to 
     which they belong.


                               article 21

       The Palestinian Arab people, in expressing itself through 
     the armed Palestinian revolution, rejects every solution that 
     is a substitute for a complete liberation of Palestine, and 
     rejects all plans that aim at the settlement of the Palestine 
     issue or its internationalization.


                               article 22

       Zionism is a political movement organically related to 
     world imperialism and hostile to all movements of liberation 
     and progress in the world. It is a racist and fanatical 
     movement in its formation; aggressive, expansionist and 
     colonialist in its aims; and Fascist and Nazi in its means. 
     Israel is the tool of the Zionist movement and a human and 
     geographical base for world imperialism. It is a 
     concentration and jumping-off point for imperialism in the 
     heart of the Arab homeland, to strike at the hopes of the 
     Arab nation for liberation, unity and progress.
       Israel is a constant threat to peace in the Middle East and 
     the entire world. Since the liberation of Palestine will 
     liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring 
     about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East, the 
     people of Palestine looks to the support of all liberal men 
     of the world and all the forces of good progress and peace; 
     and implores all of them, regardless of their different 
     leanings and orientations, to offer all help and support to 
     the people of Palestine in its just and legal struggle to 
     liberate its homeland.


                               article 23

       The demands of security and peace and the requirements of 
     truth and justice oblige all states that preserve friendly 
     relations among peoples and maintain the loyalty of citizens 
     to their homelands to consider Zionism an illegitimate 
     movement and to prohibit its existence and activity.


                               article 24

       The Palestinian Arab people believes in the principles of 
     justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human 
     dignity and the right of peoples to exercise them.


                               article 25

       To realize the aims of this Covenant and its principles the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization will undertake its full 
     role in liberating Palestine.


                               article 26

       The Palestine Liberation Organization, which represents the 
     forces of the Palestinian revolution, is responsible for the 
     movement of the Palestinian Arab people in its struggle to 
     restore its homeland, liberate it, return to it and exercise 
     the right of self-determination in it. This responsibility 
     extends to all military, political and financial matters, and 
     all else that the Palestine issue requires in the Arab and 
     international spheres.


                               ARTICLE 27

       The Palestine Liberation Organization will cooperate with 
     all Arab states, each according to its capacities, and will 
     maintain neutrality in their mutual relations in the light 
     of, and on the basis of, the requirements of the battle of 
     liberation, and will not interfere in the internal affairs of 
     any Arab state.


                               ARTICLE 28

       The Palestinian Arab people insists upon the originality 
     and independence of its national (Wataniyya) revolution and 
     rejects every manner of interference, guardianship and 
     subordination.


                               ARTICLE 29

       The Palestinian Arab people possesses the prior and 
     original right in liberating and restoring its homeland and 
     will define its position with reference to all states and 
     powers on the basis of their positions with reference to the 
     issue [of Palestine] and the extent of their support for [the 
     Palestinian Arab people] in its revolution to realize its 
     aims.


                               ARTICLE 30

       The fighters and bearers of arms in the battle of 
     liberation are the nucleus of the Popular Army, which will be 
     the protecting arm of the Palestinian Arab people.


                               ARTICLE 31

       This organization shall have a flag, oath and anthem, all 
     of which will be determined in accordance with a special 
     system.


                               ARTICLE 32

       To this Covenant is attached a law known as the Fundamental 
     Law of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in which is 
     determined the manner of the organization's formation, its 
     committees, institutions, the special functions of every one 
     of them and all the requisite duties associated with them in 
     accordance with the Covenant.


                               ARTICLE 33

       This Covenant cannot be amended except by a two-thirds 
     majority of all the members of the National Council of the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization in a special session called 
     for this purpose.
                                  ____


                [From The New York Times, July 8, 1994]

        Arafat Promising To Repeal Call for Israel's Destruction

                          (By Marlise Simons)

       Paris, July 7.--Yasir Arafat pledged today to convene the 
     Palestinian parliament-in-exile to eliminate sections of the 
     Palestinian charter that call for the destruction of Israel.
       Mr. Arafat said in a communique issued here that the 
     meeting would be held ``in the very near future'' in Gaza, 
     lending weight to the predictions that Gaza will be his base.
       He told reporters that the meeting of the Palestine 
     National Council, as the parliament is known, would take 
     place ``in a matter of months.''
       His pledge addressed a fundamental point that many Israelis 
     have been doubting, namely that the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization intends to repeal its call for the destruction 
     of Israel, as promised last September in a letter from Mr. 
     Arafat, the chairman of the P.L.O., to Prime Minister Yitzhak 
     Rabin if Israel.
       Mr. Arafat's failure to carry out that promise until now 
     has become a weapon of the Israeli rightist opposition. It 
     has argued that the P.L.O. has no intention of changing its 
     constitution and that the Israeli Government is foolish at 
     best and treasonous at worst to make accords with an 
     organization that will not make good on such a basic 
     commitment.


                         new meetings on monday

       Mr. Arafat and Mr. Rabin, who met in Paris, also agreed to 
     begin a new and critical phase of the Middle East peace 
     effort, with the first meetings starting in Cairo on Monday.
       Joint working groups are to discuss unfinished business 
     related to the transfer of power to Palestinians in the Gaza 
     Strip and Jericho, a town in the West Bank, and how to go 
     about expanding Palestinian administration in towns in other 
     parts of the West Bank.
       The two sides also said they would organize a conference 
     with Egypt and Jordan on the future of Palestinian refugees. 
     The P.L.O. has demanded the right to return for some 800,000 
     people, while Israel has said that up to 250,000 would be 
     affected by an agreement on people displaced since the 1967 
     war.
       Israeli and Palestinian leaders met twice during their 24-
     hour visit to Paris, to which they came to receive a Unesco 
     peace price. After their first meeting on Wednesday morning, 
     they reconvened again just before midnight and broke up at 
     almost 2 a.m. today.


                             An Achievement

       ``This is a new commitment to negotiate and a plan how to 
     do it,'' said a senior Israeli official. ``We all see this as 
     an achievement. The mood was very cooperative and 
     businesslike.''
       Mr. Arafat, before leaving for Tunis this afternoon, 
     described the talks as ``very positive.''
       Among the difficult points, a Palestinian delegate said, 
     was his delegation's demand to include in the communique a 
     reference to the organization of the first Palestinian 
     elections. Israel refused, he said.
       The delegate said that on elections, the two sides had in 
     fact reversed positions: at first, Israel pressed for early 
     elections, but now, the Palestinians were more eager to see 
     the endorsement of Mr. Arafat and the P.L.O. as the 
     legitimate authority. According to an Israeli official, the 
     Government is not pressing for early elections because these 
     will raise difficult questions about power and jurisdiction. 
     While the September peace accord establishes the right of the 
     Palestinian residents of Jerusalem to vote, the P.L.O. also 
     wants such residents to be eligible for office.


                        not acceptable to israel

       But in Israel's eyes, this is unacceptable. Enabling such 
     residents to run for Palestinian office, so the Israeli 
     argument goes, would mean inserting Jerusalem into the 
     process of self-rule and recognizing part of Jerusalem as 
     occupied territory.
       Today's communique also said talks would be held on the 
     release of more Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. 
     Palestinian officials here said that the freeing of more than 
     6,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails was indispensable.
       The Israeli delegation said it would seriously consider the 
     request to release imprisoned women.
       Mr. Arafat also asked for the release of Sheik Ahmed 
     Yassin, the founder of the militant Islamic movement Hamas. 
     Today, Mr. Rabin said for the first time that he would 
     consider the request to free Mr. Yassin, 58 years old, if he 
     would leave the region for 10 years and tell others to 
     refrain from terror and violence. The Hamas leader is serving 
     a life sentence for ordering the murder of four alleged 
     Palestinian informants.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just 2 seconds over 3 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2245

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my remaining time, I support the 
amendment by Senator Dole which would establish a congressional 
commission for the purpose of assessing the humanitarian, political, 
and diplomatic conditions in Haiti and reporting to the Congress on the 
appropriate policy options available to the United States with respect 
to Haiti, which report should be filed within 45 days of enactment.
  Many Senators, including this Senator, have expressed concern on the 
floor about the potential of an invasion of Haiti by the United States. 
There has been a sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed saying that we 
do not believe there ought to be an invasion of Haiti.
  There is no doubt that a military invasion would not be a very 
complicated matter and it is a war which could be won perhaps in a 
matter of hours. But what would happen after the military victory is 
very, very problematical and very uncertain.
  The amendment by the distinguished Republican leader would establish 
the congressional commission to investigate the policy options. It is 
my view that the Organization of American States ought to have a large 
role in assessing what should be done in Haiti, and that if military 
action is to be undertaken, it ought to be joint action by the 
Organization of American States.
  The saber rattling which the President has engaged in in Haiti, as 
well as in Bosnia, has undermined very materially the credibility of 
the United States, and it is at a very important time when we face a 
real crisis in North Korea where there are vital U.S. interests at 
stake.
  With the sense of the Senate having been expressed against an 
invasion of Haiti, the establishment of this commission would again put 
the President squarely on notice--no invasion of Haiti. And the 45-day 
time limit would permit a report back with an assessment of policy 
options by the Congress.
  If President Clinton wants to have the military option, then he ought 
to come to the Congress and ask for our authorization just as it was 
done on the authorization for the use of force in Iraq. The 
Constitution of the United States gives to only the Congress the 
authority to declare war. And while the President does have 
prerogatives under his power as Commander in Chief to act in an 
emergency and in the context of the Haiti situation, if he wants to 
exercise the option or have the option for military force, he ought to 
come to the Congress, there ought to be a full-fledged debate, and that 
authorization ought to be given only by the Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, unlike the Senator from Pennsylvania, I 
take an entirely different view on the Dole amendment establishing a 
commission on Haiti policy.
  Incidentally, I should note on the amendment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania regarding the PLO, I am perfectly willing to accept that. 
Once the Republican floor manager is on the floor, I will, if I am not 
too close to the time of the next vote, propound a unanimous consent 
agreement that we be able to set aside the pending amendment 
temporarily so that we can adopt the amendment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. And I will do that as soon as the Republican floor 
manager or his designee is on the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for 
accepting the amendment. It is my understanding that it has been 
cleared with Senator McConnell.
  I ask, at the time it be accepted, that my formal floor statement, 
Senator Shelby's formal floor statement, and the remarks I just made 
appear in context in the Congressional Record continuously with the 
events which Senator Leahy has described.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You are asking that that be included in the 
Record now?
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask it be included at the point in the Record where 
Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me talk about the Dole amendment on 
Haiti.
  This is an amendment, as we know, to establish a congressional 
commission on Haiti policy.
  This assumes that the relevant committees, key Members of the House 
and Senate in both parties, are not now discussing Haiti policy. The 
fact is that we are. The various chairmen of the appropriate 
committees, the ranking members as well as other key and knowledgeable 
Members of Congress--again, from both parties--have had lengthy 
discussion of Haiti policy. There is absolutely no need for a 
commission at this time. In fact, it would do direct harm to U.S. 
national interests.
  All one has to do is look at the calendar. This calls for a 
commission, once having been set up, to report back in 45 days. It 
would not go into place until after this bill is passed and signed into 
law. That means passed by this body, gone through conference, then 
passed by both bodies, and then signed into law. As a practical matter, 
we are talking about a report back to Congress sometime after the 
Congress has recessed for the fall elections.
  It is no wonder that one of the biggest supporters, according to the 
news today, is General Cedras of Haiti. He supports this amendment. 
Frankly, I support President Clinton on this matter.
  I understand the concerns being expressed. But we have on the one 
side General Cedras, who thinks this is a great idea, and we have 
President Clinton and the administration, who think it is a bad idea. I 
side with President Clinton and the administration. It is a bad idea.
  No mistake should be made. The distinguished Republican leader is 
right in saying the Haiti situation is critical, just as so many other 
Senators on this side, including the distinguished Democratic leader, 
Senator Mitchell, are right in saying the Haiti situation is critical.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  The question which I have turns on the authority of the Congress 
contrasted with the authority of the President. We have had extensive 
debate on the Senate floor about the military option. The Senator from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] offered an amendment several weeks ago to 
limit the use of funds to foreclose the military option. That amendment 
had certain exceptions where the President could act in case of an 
emergency.
  I have a question for my colleague from Vermont. We have debated 
these issues formally and informally during the 14 years that I have 
been in the Senate. We used to debate other issues when we were 
district attorneys in the good old days, or in the bad old days. It 
seems to me when there is a real national issue on what we ought to do 
in Haiti and the President has reserved the military option and there 
is no emergency, as we have had an opportunity to debate it, that we 
really ought to confront the issue head on in the Congress and ought to 
come to a conclusion as to whether Congress authorizes the use of 
military force in Haiti? And, if so, under what circumstances?
  The question I have for my colleague, Senator Leahy, is why should we 
not do that instead of leaving the matter up in the air?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would respond to this. That is not, 
though, the Dole-Warner amendment. This establishes a commission that 
will report back sometime after the Congress has gone out of session 
for the year. We could then have a debate on it, maybe in February or 
March of next year. I cannot conceive, during the years of the Bush 
administration or Reagan administration, any of the cosponsors of this 
amendment standing for one second--for one second--for such an 
amendment if it was going to tie up, literally into months and months 
and months, the hands of the Republican President. That is the issue.
  Should there be consultation? Should there be discussion of our Haiti 
policy? I have no problem with that at all. But to put in an amendment 
that basically says we are going to have a debate on this thing 
sometime in January or February, and then decide what will happen--I 
cannot imagine any President standing for that. We have had a number of 
instances where Presidents have taken actions and had the debate after. 
In what was probably one of the better debates--on the Persian Gulf--we 
debated a specific resolution then and there on it. That is a different 
thing than this. We did not debate a resolution which says we will 
determine the answer to this question several months from now.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not want to be discourteous to my 
colleagues but I know the Senator from Pennsylvania had a statement to 
make earlier. The Senator from Kansas had a statement to make on this. 
I would like to complete my statement.
  I will be glad to yield for another question, of course I will, but 
then I am going to have to make my statement and then I will be glad to 
yield to all the questions they would like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just one quick question to my friend 
from Vermont. If this amendment were not crafted this way but crafted 
in a way similar to the Persian Gulf--because really that is the 
analogy here, where you have a long lead time. It is not an emergency, 
but a long lead time where there is, in essence, a national debate 
going on about whether or not we should use force in Haiti. If the 
amendment were crafted in a different manner and it was simply related 
to the question of Presidential consultation and ultimately approval 
from the Congress, would my friend from Vermont support that?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 92 of us voted for one a couple of weeks 
ago. Actually, I believe it was on this same bill. And we voted----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Then I assume my friend would be unhappy if the 
President were to invade Haiti when we were out of town?
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator from Kentucky wants to see the Senate 
debate a freestanding resolution saying whether the Congress would 
support Presidential discretion in the use of force in Haiti or would 
absolutely deny any ability, under any circumstances, of the President 
to utilize force in Haiti--if he wants a freestanding resolution on 
that, I am perfectly willing to have that and vote on it. Or even some 
of the varying degrees of that, which is basically what we did on the 
Persian Gulf. I have no problem with a debate of that nature.
  But we have debated this issue already on this bill 2 weeks ago. The 
final resolution was to vote down the Gregg amendment, the amendment of 
the Senator from New Hampshire; 92 Senators voted in favor of a Haiti 
resolution. We now have a resolution and the fact of the matter is we 
have a resolution that is supported by General Cedras, according to 
this morning's press; opposed by President Clinton--again, according to 
today's press. Frankly, while that is not dispositive of the issue, it 
certainly should weigh on the minds of Senators why it is that General 
Cedras, a man who is holding this country under a military 
dictatorship, supports this resolution and why the Commander in Chief 
of the United States opposes it. It is a fairly simple issue to me.
  Incidentally, I might mention to my friend from Pennsylvania, when he 
talks of our days as district attorneys, that is the last time either 
one of us had a job we truly enjoyed. But we are good friends, and of 
course I yield to another question.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. I 
agree with much of what he has said as to the resolution by the 
Republican leader. I do not know that it would come up after the 
Congress is out of session, but I think its purpose is really to avoid 
an invasion while Congress is out of session. I appreciate what the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont has had to say, that he would 
welcome debate on a freestanding resolution for the use of force in 
Haiti.
  Mr. LEAHY. With a realistic time, like a day or two or something like 
this--but something realistic--and have one drafted in such a way we 
knew the exact parameters. I think that is an appropriate thing for 
Congress to do. I would have no problem with that. But we could debate 
Haiti forever on this appropriations bill and the end result can be we 
have no appropriations bill on issues that are entirely different.
  I think this issue on Haiti is a significant enough one. If we are 
going to debate it, let us debate just that without us thinking is this 
an amendment that should work or should not work on this bill? Is it 
going to end up making it impossible to pass this bill or not pass this 
bill? All of which are issues that should not be on the question of 
Haiti.
  Mr. SPECTER. As usual, when the distinguished Senator from Vermont 
and I discuss a matter, we usually come to a meeting of the minds. I 
think we are very close on this one. I would not want to hold up this 
bill on the issue of a Haiti resolution.
  It would be my hope that the President would come to the Congress and 
ask for authorization to use force in Haiti, just as the Congress 
authorized the use of force in Iraq, so that there would be a heads-up 
debate facing the issue squarely, with the Congress of the United 
States deciding whether there would be force used in Haiti, which is 
really the war power which is reserved solely to the Congress on our 
authority to declare war.
  Then we would have a determination as to whether the Congress 
authorized the use of force and authorized a war and under what 
conditions. I hope that if the President wants to maintain that 
military option, he will come to the Congress and ask for that 
authority. In the absence of his doing so--and I think this is a less 
desirable alternative--for someone in the Congress to structure that 
kind of a resolution and bring it to a head, but perhaps that is what 
we should do if the President will not take the initiative and ask the 
Congress for that authorization.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to note that naturally there have 
been a number of times since both the Senator from Pennsylvania and I 
have been serving in the Senate where Presidents have not done that.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of some of the briefings, 
including the briefing by the administration of the Republican Policy 
Committee members in the House involving the CIA, DI, and others, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                    Briefings and Hearings on Haiti

       28 June 1994, Hearing on US Policy Towards Haiti; Gray, 
     Shattuck, McKinley testify before SFRC SC on Western 
     Hemisphere Affairs.
       15 June 1994, Hearing on Haitian Asylum-seekers; Ambassador 
     Brunson McKinley testifies before the House Judiciary 
     Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration, and Refugees 
     on legislation on Haiti introduced by Meek and Dellums.
       8 June 1994, Hearing on Haiti; William Gray III; before 
     HFAC.
       8 June 1994, Hearing on Haiti, CBI Parity, Cuba, Latin 
     America Summit; Senator Bob Graham: Briefer: Alexander 
     Watson.
       1 June 1994, Briefing on Haiti Refugee Processing; HFAC 
     Staff with RP and INS.
       25 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Intelligence Community 
     Briefing (closed) HPSIC Members and Staff. Briefers: CIA/NIO 
     Lattrel, INR, others.
       24 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Pre-trip Intelligence 
     Community Briefing, Rep. Dixon and HPSCI staff. Briefers: 
     CIA, InR, DIA, DEA, NSA, JCS/J-2.
       12 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Refugee Policy. House 
     Judiciary Subcmte on Immigration; RP & INS.
       3 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Refugee Issues: RFAC Staff 
     with RP, ARA, and INS.
       3 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti. Senator Dodd and other SFRC 
     Members. Briefers: Acting Secretary Talbott and NSC Sandy 
     Berger.
       8 March 1994, Hearing on Haiti. SFRC Subcommittee on 
     Western Hemisphere. Witness: Ambassador Pezzullo.
       9 November 1993, Briefing on Haiti: Hafac Western 
     Hemisphere Members Briefing; (Amb. Pezzullo).
       3 November 1993, Briefing on Haiti (closed); HPSCI Members 
     & Staff. Briefers: State/CIA/DIA/DOD.
       27 October 1993, Briefing on Haiti-Intelligence; House 
     Republican Policy Committee Members. Briefers: CIA, DI.
       20 October 1993, Briefing: on Recent Events in Haiti: House 
     Intelligence Committee; State witness TBD (Pezzullo or 
     Watson).
       22 July 1993, Recent Developments in Haiti; HFAC W. 
     Hemisphere Subcommittee
       18 June 1993, Haiti; Cong. Toricelli and Hfac staff. 
     Briefer: Amb. Pezzullo.
       26 May 1993, Assistance for Haiti; Sen. Leahy. Briefers: 
     ARA Pezzullo & Watson.
       18 May 1993, Haiti: SACFO Minority Staff. Briefers: ARA-
     Pezzullo, AID.
       13 May 1993, Haiti; SACFO Minority Staff. Briefers: ARA-
     Pezzullo, AID.
       13 May 1993, Haiti; HAC Foreign OPS Subcommittee and 
     Associate Staff. ATA/Pezzullo, AID, and DOD.
       3 May 1993, Situation in Haiti/Request for Contingency 
     Fund; SACFO Majority and Minority Staff. Briefers: ARA-
     Pezzullo, AID--Williams.
       10 March 1993, Haiti; for HAC Foreign OPS Minority Staff w/
     Majority Staff.
       9 March 1993, Haiti; for HAC Foreign OPS Minority and 
     Majority Staff. Briefer: ARA/??.
       26 January 1993, Haiti; HAC Foreign Ops Subcommittee Staff. 
     ARA/Gelbard.
       12 January 1993, Update on Haiti; Senate Judiciary 
     Committee Staff Briefers: ARA/RP/INS.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when you have time to consult, I much 
prefer that. In fact, there was a consultation of key Members of the 
Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, last night. It was very 
extensive. I think it lasted a couple of hours and involved General 
Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary 
of Defense, William Perry, the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 
our U.N. Ambassador, Madeleine Albright, and the President's National 
Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, as well as others.
  It was very, very extensive with a very candid, free exchange. I wish 
we could print in the Record the transcript, but much of it was 
classified. We did it in a secure room. I thought it was very open. I 
thought the answers of Secretary Perry and Secretary Christopher and 
Ambassador Albright and National Security Adviser Tony Lake were very 
honest, very forthright, very clear, and extraordinarily candid. It was 
one of the most candid briefings and consultations I have had in my 20 
years here.
  There have been other times when we have not had this. I think of 
when we sent the marines to Beirut. Here was the policy: From the time 
they were given the orders to go, to the time they were sent en route, 
to the time they arrived, to the time they were put in place, the 
reasons given by the administration and the White House for their being 
there changed every single time. Almost daily the policy of why they 
were there changed.
  They were then put in a building which all our intelligence people 
said was a clear target of terrorists. And on White House orders, they 
were still put there. The White House, the President, the National 
Security Adviser--everybody else--ignored clear, clear warnings that 
there was going to be a terrorist attack on them this is in a country 
where car bombings were endemic. They ignored clear, clear reports of 
when that car bombing could take place and who might do it.
  The marine sentries on duty under White House orders were not even 
allowed to have live ammunition in the chambers of their guns. Now this 
is under an administration where the President would always demonstrate 
he was the toughest President ever, President Reagan. Under White House 
orders, they were not even allowed to have live ammunition for the 
sentries.
  They were not allowed to put up the normal type of tank traps that 
might stop a car bomber from coming through and, of course, what 
happened is a car bomber came through and 250 brave marines died 
needlessly. They died because of incompetence at the White House. They 
died because we had a policy that was designed more for show than for 
substance.
  They were put there because nobody even knew why they were there, but 
we all knew they died. And then to make it even worse, when the bodies 
were brought back, it had to be after dark so it would not show on the 
national news.
  And what was the response of the President of the United States? We 
invaded Grenada. Wow. And Grenada was such a success that if you were 
in the Pentagon during the invasion, if your elevator door opened, a 
hand reached in and slapped a medal on you. It was darn near that bad. 
We invaded Grenada. We ignored it for several days. The Cubans were 
trying to surrender: ``We want to surrender.'' ``Sorry, you can't 
surrender, we have to have a successful invasion here.''
  Other Americans died killed by Americans. We talked about how we are 
stopping the Soviet Union and communism in Grenada. We gave the Soviet 
Union enormous, enormous tactical intelligence on the United States. 
They found out that our ships could not talk to each other, ships could 
not talk to the Army. We had an Army commander who goes down and uses a 
pay phone in Grenada to call back to the Pentagon to ask them if they 
would tell the Navy to maybe shell a little bit closer to the Cubans 
and less on the Americans.
  We had others who died needlessly. We could not even send information 
down from here to tell where they were supposed to be. Fortunately, 
there were a couple tourist shops open so our intelligence people could 
go in and buy a map. And this was our big victory, trying to overshadow 
the death of 250 brave marines who died needlessly--who died 
needlessly.
  So maybe consultation and policy should be done. But maybe we ought 
to talk about substance and not symbolism. The symbolism was great. We 
defeated Grenada. Whoopee. Wow. The National Guard from most of our 
States could have done that. We did not need the might of the greatest 
power on Earth to do it. We have to ask ourselves what was the reason 
for it.
  I digressed.
  We have a situation in Haiti that is critical. We still come down to 
the point: This amendment meets the strong support of General Cedras. 
It is strongly opposed by the Clinton administration. Frankly, I think 
the choice is clear. All of us are distressed by the situation in 
Haiti. Look what the cruel and corrupt leaders are doing there--driving 
their own people to misery. This is a terrible, terrible thing going on 
there. Poor, poor people, the poorest of the poor in our hemisphere, 
and an oligarchy lives in great splendor, to go off and in an hour they 
can travel and go into stores where they and their families will spend 
more money than a whole village will make in a year. So they can buy 
their jewelry and their fancy cars and liquor and everything else while 
their poor country dies of economic deprivation.
  We want to try to help. It is in our hemisphere. The entire 
international community agonizes over how to help. The members of the 
United Nations have joined together to apply stiff economic sanctions 
against the outlaw regime in Haiti, and I believe the American people 
strongly support these sanctions.
  There is not consensus on the next steps. I do not think there is any 
enthusiasm in this country--certainly there is not in my own State of 
Vermont--for a military invasion of Haiti, but neither are many people 
comfortable about having the United States Government sit on its hands 
and watch the stream of refugees trying desperately to escape from 
Haiti and find refuge in the United States and see that stream grow 
steadily larger.
  They do not want to stand by while innocent people are tortured, 
mutilated, and killed. Look at the pictures on our morning television 
today of the mass grave just discovered and you can understand why the 
United Nations was kicked out yesterday, why human rights observers 
were kicked out, so they will not find such things as mass graves where 
people have just been massacred, and with all signs pointing to the 
fact that it is the military and the police all under the command of 
the same people.

  We do not want to let thousands of children starve. We do not want to 
see democracy thwarted by a group of corrupt, power-hungry thugs, which 
is what General Cedras and his people are.
  Now, are there simple solutions to this crisis? Of course not. And I 
agree with the sponsors of the amendment, with Senator Dole and Senator 
Warner and others that there are no simple solutions. But because there 
are no simple solutions, it is all the more reason not to preemptively 
tie the hands of the President in fashioning a responsible policy on 
Haiti in consultation with our allies.
  The administration is consulting with our allies. It is consulting 
with the leadership, Republican and Democrat, in the Congress.
  Public discussion of the proper role for the U.S. Government is not 
only valuable, but I feel that it is essential. Debate along lines we 
are having here is part of that discussion. It may not belong on this 
bill, but it does belong in this Chamber. And it is a legitimate area 
of debate for all of us, whether we agree with the administration's 
policy or disagree. It is a legitimate area of debate for the Senate. 
After all, we are supposed to be the conscience of the Nation, an issue 
and designation that all too many of us tend to forget. So that is why 
I, along with 92 of my fellow Senators, voted in favor of a resolution 
just 2 weeks ago calling on the President to consult with Congress 
before undertaking military action in Haiti.
  Public debate is essential, but more study of the nature of this 
would be counterproductive. To have a study that would come back after 
the Congress is out, that we might vote on in January or February or 
March of next year, makes no sense, but it is why General Cedras wants 
us to pass this amendment and why President Clinton does not want us 
to. Again, it is a case where I will side with and support the 
President of the United States. I disagree with General Cedras. I 
disagree with this resolution.
  The facts of this crisis are not hidden or complicated. American 
correspondents are providing a steady flow of reporting and analysis of 
the changing situation in Haiti. All you have to do is turn on your 
radio, turn on your television or read your newspapers. And I hear no 
one suggesting that the reason there is disagreement over Haiti policy 
is that we lack facts. Quite to the contrary. We are dealing with a 
tiny, little country in our hemisphere, and we can get all of the 
necessary facts. We do not need a study commission to get more facts. I 
suspect that most of us are not even fully keeping up with all the 
facts that are pouring in, to say nothing about adding more to it.
  But if we establish that study commission, it sends the wrong message 
to the murderers in Port-au-Prince. We are going to be saying to them, 
if we establish this commission, ``Relax. Don't worry about the 
sanctions. The U.S. Government is not going to act any time soon. We 
are going to study the situation for the next several months. You can 
keep on your stealing and your killing for a while longer because we 
have just put the brakes on everything.''
  Mr. President, is that the way to conduct foreign policy? Is it the 
way to conduct foreign policy, saying no matter what we say, we took 
the keys out of the car for the next several months; we turned the 
ships around; we have grounded the airplanes; we have told the Marines 
and others, ``Don't worry; we are not going to do anything''?
  What kind of diplomatic pressure do you bring on a country if they 
know, no matter what happens, you are not going to move, you are not 
going to do anything, you are going to talk, there is this 
congressional limitation which says nothing happens until the Congress 
gets around to it in January or February or March of next year.
  Now, there is dispute in the country about what our policy should be, 
but I suspect there would be no dispute in the country among the people 
if asked: Do you think it really is the best way to set our foreign 
policy, to say we will set up a hiatus until the Congress gets around 
to work on this issue next spring sometime?
  I do not think many people in the United States are that confident in 
the Congress that we might do it. And it also says to the international 
community, after we have been up there--Ambassador Albright has done a 
tremendous job in New York dealing with the international community, as 
has Secretary Christopher and everybody else. But this is the same 
international community we have gone to to seek their support. Now we 
say, ``Relax, folks. We do not really support the U.N. Security 
Council's July 12 resolution calling for a `rapid and definite' 
solution to the crisis,'' a resolution that we helped put through. We 
are saying, just a few days later, we do not agree with it. In fact, we 
are saying to them, ``Why don't you just go home; it is hot in New York 
City at the United Nations. Go home, forget about Haiti for a while. We 
will check back with you in a couple of months.'' It will keep the 
undertaker business going in Haiti, but we are gone.
  Our allies would have one more reason to question U.S. leadership in 
world affairs. The Haitian oppressors would go on oppressing. The flood 
of refugees would go on growing.
  Mr. President, this is the wrong resolution and the wrong place at 
the wrong time, and I am going to vote against it. I hope my fellow 
Senators would, too.
  I know that one of the people who has as much experience in this part 
of the world as any Member of the Senate is the Senator from Florida. 
Senator Graham has gone down there. He has visited these areas. He has 
done it at personal danger. I know Senator Graham is in the Chamber. If 
he wishes to speak on this resolution, I would be happy to yield to him 
at this point.
  I should also note for my colleagues we are going to have a vote at 
11:30 on another matter.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was going to say I am prepared----
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving my right to the floor, I would like to yield for 
a question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. For a question. I am prepared to change the subject 
and discuss another amendment and lay it down, if that would be 
helpful.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this morning the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania had been on the floor discussing an amendment 
which I believe he sent to the desk.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a couple of amendments that have 
been cleared, while we are checking with Senator Specter.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside and the Senator from Kentucky be 
recognized to introduce a couple of amendments that have been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 2252.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2252) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2261

     (Purpose: Relating to U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping 
                              operations)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by 
Senator Pressler, which I understand has been cleared on both sides, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Pressler, proposes an amendment numbered 2261.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:


     payments-in-kind as voluntary contributions to united nations 
                        peacekeeping activities

       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) United States voluntary contributions to peacekeeping 
     operations conducted by the United Nations may consist of 
     contributions of excess defense articles or may be in the 
     form of payments made directly to United States companies 
     providing goods and services in support of United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities; and
       (2) such contributions should be made in consultation with 
     the Secretaries of State and Defense.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have altered this amendment to reflect 
the concerns of my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. This 
amendment is a sense of the Congress amendment, which allows U.S. 
voluntary contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations to be made in 
forms other than direct cash payment to the U.N. bureaucracy.
  My amendment would allow U.S. contributions to consist of excess 
Department of Defense articles or of direct payments to U.S. companies 
providing goods and services. Furthermore, the amendment calls for 
consultation between the Secretaries of State and Defense before any 
transfers or contributions are made.
  During the Senate floor debate on the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, I have offered two other amendments which promote 
U.S. contributions of goods and services to U.N. operations. As the No. 
1 contributor to the United Nations, the United States should be 
afforded the opportunity to promote U.S. business through a payment-in-
kind process. For years, some European member States have utilized a 
payment-in-kind system to full U.N. obligations. It is time the United 
States was credited for the equipment and services we have been 
providing over the above our current assessments.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It offers the United 
States fair opportunities in the U.N. contribution process. We owe it 
to U.S. taxpayers to get the most out of the dollars we contribute to 
the United Nations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2261) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2262

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Hatfield, proposes an amendment numbered 2262.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 11, line 19, after ``1961'' and before the period 
     (.) add the following new proviso: ``Provided further, that 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     an amount equal to the amount made available for the Office 
     of Population of the Agency for International Development in 
     fiscal year 1994 shall be made available to that office''.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to maintain core 
funding for the Agency for International Development's excellent 
population program.
  As AID seeks to reengineer itself, I am concerned that the population 
program not lose its effectiveness through well-intended but short-
sighted experiments on its central funding. This amendment ensures that 
the amount of money going to the Office of Population in fiscal year 
1995 will be at least the same amount the Office received for this 
fiscal year. My understanding is that figure is between $280 and $300 
million.
  Behind the great success of AID's population program is the 
efficiency of its current funding system, where field missions buy into 
the wealth of expertise, services, and commodities purchased in bulk 
through the central Office of Population. This economy of scale is what 
this amendment seeks to maintain.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The amendment (No. 2262) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.


                  nuclear reactor training simulators

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise with the distinguished ranking 
member of the subcommittee, Mr. McConnell, to express concern over the 
continued operation of the nuclear reactors in the former Soviet Union 
which do not meet international safety standards. These Soviet-built 
reactors are very dangerous; however, they are critical to the economic 
well-being of the countries they service. There appears to be no 
alternative but to improve the safety of these operational reactors if 
a future accident with very serious international consequences is to be 
avoided. Is it the understanding of the distinguished ranking member 
that there is little likelihood that these reactors will be shut down 
in the near term?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would respond to the Senator that the power these 
reactors supply cannot be economically replaced in the near term and 
the loss of the electrical energy which is generated by each of these 
units would cause significant damage to the economies of these 
countries.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand that the construction costs to bring these 
reactors to the standards accepted in the United States is 
prohibitively expensive. Is that similar to the understanding of the 
distinguished ranking member?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct. The amount required to improve 
the physical plant of these reactors is so large that improvements of 
this type, although very desirable, are very unlikely.
  Mr. WARNER. I am informed that the International Atomic Energy Agency 
has initiated several programs to review, analyze, and diagnose the 
significant problems at these reactors and that these studies reveal 
that the root causes of many operational safety related events involve 
inadequacies in operator actions, procedures, and the design interface 
with the control boards. I am also informed that a cost-effective way 
to address these shortfalls is the procurement of analytical 
engineering simulators for use by the nuclear regulatory agencies of 
the former Soviet Union countries and by the crews of the reactors. For 
a relatively small sum, simulators for the most dangerous of the 
reactors could be procured, with corresponding improvements in the 
operational safety of these reactors in the near term. Would the 
distinguished Senator consider including language in the ``Statement of 
Managers'' which would encourage the Department of State to consider 
this course of action?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to respond that I will press for such 
language in the conference between the two bodies, and I thank the 
Senator for raising this issue.


                           amendment no. 2253

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct we are now back on the Helms 
amendment which is going to be voted on at 11:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. We are on the Helms 
amendment, and will vote on it at 11:30.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again I state my strong opposition to this 
amendment. I believe it makes it impossible for us to even take part in 
the Cairo Conference on Population. But it also makes it impossible for 
us even to work with any country that wants to do away with abortion, 
make abortion safer, or find other methods of population control.
  I know the Senator from Washington State is here. I would like to 
yield.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms amendment, and in 
strong support of the upcoming International Conference on Population 
and Development. I believe the effect of the Helms amendment would be 
to undermine U.S. leadership at the upcoming Cairo Conference and at 
any events that will follow from that important event.
  In just a few months, over 100 nations of the world will gather in 
Cairo for the International Conference on Population and Development, 
the most significant meeting in a decade to address issues related to 
population.
  The purpose of the Cairo Conference is to assess the current state of 
global population, determine its impact on human development, and 
produce an action plan for the next decade and century to deal with 
this most serious issue.
  The program of action--commonly known as the Cairo document--will 
represent the international consensus on population policy.
  Today the world's population has swelled to over 5 billion people, 
with 93 million more added each year. Without strong leadership in 
support of voluntary family planning programs, experts predict that in 
just 35 years the world's population is likely to double to 10 billion.
  We know that many economic, environmental, and health problems facing 
our world can be directly related to overpopulation. Global warming, 
stagnating economies in developing countries, teen pregnancy, and high 
maternal death rates all relate to overpopulation.
  If we are to effectively address this problem, the success of the 
Cairo Conference is crucial. The goal of the conference is to vastly 
increase access to family planning and help establish improved 
reproductive health care.
  Further, the conference will emphasize the vital need to improve the 
status of women worldwide, and most importantly, work to ensure that 
population programs are responsive and accountable to the people who 
use them--especially women.
  Let us remember some of the history of this issue, and why adoption 
of the Helms amendment by the Senate today would be unwise.
  The last major world meeting on population took place in 1984 in 
Mexico City. Until the 1980's, the United States had been at the 
forefront of efforts to increase access to voluntary family planning 
worldwide and address the problem of overpopulation.
  At the 1984 Mexico City Conference, however, the United States sent 
chilling signals to countries around the world that our Nation had 
reversed course--that we were no longer concerned about promoting 
access to safe and effective family planning, and that the United 
States considered the entire question of global population growth to be 
a ``neutral phenomenon'' that would somehow take care of itself.
  The United States maintained that harmful position throughout the 
remainder of the 1980's--refusing to recognize the correlation between 
unchecked population growth, poverty, hunger, or environmental 
degradation.
  Fortunately, those days of putting our heads in the sand are over. 
President Clinton, together with the international community, is 
embracing a comprehensive approach to international population issues, 
which involves addressing a wide range of concerns.
  President Clinton recognizes that there is no magic bullet to address 
the population issue, he knows that to be successful, population 
programs must not only focus on reducing birthrates but must also 
address human rights, women's health and status, and cultural 
differences.
  Thus, to the Cairo Conference the United States is brining new 
approaches, emphasizing programs that enhance the ability of 
individuals and couples to freely and responsibly decide the number and 
spacing of their children. The overwhelming majority of states 
participating in the Cairo Conference have endorsed this approach.
  In addition, the United States' long-term approach to population 
includes:
  Promoting access to the full range of quality reproductive health 
care, including women-centered women-managed services;
  Stressing the need for governments and public and private 
organizations to commit themselves to quality of care in family 
planning services;
  Supporting the empowerment of woman;
  Ensuring access to primary health care, with an emphasis on child 
survival;
  Preserving the endangered natural environmental of our globe; and 
finally,
  Ensuring that our population policy supports the world's priority for 
sustainable development.
  So where does the Helms amendment fit into this important debate?
  Because the document that is to be adopted at the Cairo Conference 
will speak to the next two decades, proposing recommendations for many 
years to come, I believe that if implemented, the Helms amendment will 
interfere with and obstruct U.S. activities after the Cairo Conference. 
Essentially, the amendment seeks to chill any of the important and 
ongoing dialog that our Nation will be involved in regarding population 
issues.3
  It is important to know that the Helms amendment misrepresents the 
U.S. position on abortion and the U.S. role at the Cairo Conference and 
at other population forums.
  President Clinton has articulated his view on abortion numerous times 
and it is a view endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Americans: 
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. That is the position the 
United States will represent in Cairo and any related events in the 
years to come.
  And for the record, let us be clear about current law on abortion 
funding internationally: Under existing law, U.S. funds may not be used 
either to fund abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate 
any person to have an abortion. Exceptions are permitted only in cases 
of rape, incest, or if the life of the woman is in danger, and then 
only in settings and institutions where such activities are legal and 
safe.
  In addition, the notion that the United States will use the Cairo 
forum and other meetings like it to lobby other nations on abortion is 
just plan nonsense; the draft document for Cairo clearly acknowledges 
the sovereign right of each nation to implement its own policies.
  And nowhere in the Cairo document is there any call for the 
legalization of abortion.
  In any case, it is important to note that current U.S. law prohibits 
the use of Federal funds Governmentwide for lobbying purposes, so that 
the type of activity described in the Helms amendment is already 
prohibited by law.
  So because this amendment will have no real effect on current law, it 
is really about the symbols and messages we send to the international 
community on the issue of population.
  To me, the Helms amendment is deeply cynical. By attempting to cloud 
U.S. participation at the Cairo conference and the activities that will 
follow, the Helms amendment preys on the world's poorest women, who I 
believe have it tough enough already. Let's not add to their burden 
today by playing politics with one of the most daunting and complex 
issues of our time. The fact is that family planning saves lives and 
helps reduce abortion worldwide.

  Experts estimate that the lives of 5.6 million children and 500,000 
women could be saved each year if all the women who wanted to limit 
their families had access to family planning. If the intention of the 
Helms amendment is to prevent abortion--a goal which I strongly 
support--then I encourage the Senator from North Carolina to address 
that problem head on by seeking additional funds for our bilateral 
family planning program. Providing women with the means to prevent 
unwanted pregnancies will do more than anything else to reduce 
abortion.
  In closing, I hope we can go on record today as sending our 
delegation to Cairo with the full support of this Senate, so that the 
U.S. team can continue efforts to develop and implement a plan to give 
families around the globe access to the reproductive health care 
services they need.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the Helms amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Helms' 
amendment. I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment, as 
well. I have heard people say that if you support this amendment, we 
cannot participate in the Cairo Conference. That is not true. I read 
the amendment, and that is certainly not this Senator's interpretation.
  What Senator Helms is trying to do is prohibit the State Department 
and this administration from lobbying other countries to change their 
laws concerning abortion.
  Madam President, there are 95 countries throughout the world that 
have various restrictions on abortion. Some are very strict against 
abortion; some are not quite so strict; and that is probably to be 
expected. We have had significant debate in this country about how 
restrictive we should be. We have had restrictions in this country 
dealing with abortion. This administration is now going international, 
using the influence and prestige of the United States, trying to change 
all other countries' laws concerning abortion, to make them identical 
with the philosophy of this administration.
  I might mention that the philosophy of this administration is not the 
law of the land. They have not been successful in changing the laws of 
this country. We have laws that prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for 
abortions. We have laws in this country that this administration has 
tried to change, but they have been unsuccessful to date. They may be 
successful later on. This administration would like to have abortion as 
a fringe benefit under its health care policy. They may be successful, 
but they have not been successful yet. They would like to have a change 
in policy where taxpayers subsidize abortion under the Medicaid 
Program. They have not been successful yet. Yet, they want to change 
all other countries' laws.
  Let me just read from an action cable that came on March 16 of this 
year from the State Department. This is part of the statement:

       Posts are requested to approach host governments to outline 
     [our Government] negotiating priorities for the final 
     preparatory meeting for the [U.N.-sponsored] International 
     Conference on Population Development * * *. The priority 
     issues for the United States include assuring * * * access to 
     safe abortion * * *. The United States believes that access 
     to safe, legal, and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right 
     of all women.

  Well, a lot of countries have laws prohibiting abortion. When I think 
about it, most people would say abortion is legal in this country, but 
that has never passed in the Congress. We have never passed a law 
legalizing abortion. That was done through the Roe versus Wade 
decision, not by a majority in Congress. Yet, this administration says 
we want to make sure abortion is safe and legal. In other words, in 
countries that have laws outlawing abortion, they think those are wrong 
and should be changed. So they are sending out delegates to approach 
host governments throughout the world saying: Change your laws.
  A lot of countries are very offended by this cultural imperialism 
where the United States is going to try to dictate or direct what their 
policies should be concerning abortion. I am not talking about one or 
two countries, but a total population of about 2 billion people. About 
37 percent of the world's population have restrictions against 
abortion, and this administration wants to eliminate that.
  A lot of those countries are predominantly Catholic, and some are 
predominantly Moslem. A lot of those countries are our allies. If we 
put this kind of pressure on those countries, a lot of them are going 
to resent it. I really wonder why our State Department is doing it. I 
cannot help but think that we have serious problems. This State 
Department cannot decide what they want to do on Haiti, or Bosnia, or 
North Korea, where we have a vacillating policy, but they know what 
they want to do on abortion: Implement their philosophy, which they 
have not been successful in passing through the U.S. Congress yet--and 
I hope they will not be successful--throughout the world, and tell 95 
countries that their laws should be replaced with the Clinton policy, a 
policy not even supported in Congress.
  I will just mention that I asked a question of our former colleague, 
Senator Wirth, who is now the State Department counselor, at a hearing 
on March 8, before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
  I said: ``We are spending a significant amount of money on population 
control. Does that include abortion?''
  He answered: ``We believe that women have the right to a full range 
of women's reproductive right services, and that would include 
abortion, if necessary.''
  I informed Counselor Wirth that that was against the law. We have a 
law that says we are not going to use these funds for abortion. Yet, he 
said we want everybody to have a full range of services.
  I said: ``Well, does the Clinton administration want to repeal the 
present law that prohibits U.S. funds from being used to pay for 
abortions?''
  Senator Wirth said: ``That is right. We have asked for a complete 
rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, and in our submission to 
Congress, we did not include the language which we think is much too 
constraining.''
  In other words, they want to change the law we have been operating 
under, and the Foreign Assistance Act says we do not want taxpayers' 
money being used to subsidize abortion. We do not do it in the United 
States, except when necessary under certain circumstances--to protect 
the life of the mother, and in cases of rape and incest. And we want to 
make sure we do not do it internationally.
  Senator Wirth and this administration want to change that. They think 
the taxpayers should be involved in funding abortions and the access to 
abortion, and should override the laws that these 95 countries have 
prohibiting abortion. They want to overturn those laws.
  I think that is really wrong. I do not agree with the policy in the 
United States, but I think it is doubly offensive that we should try to 
impose this administration's philosophy on everybody else in the world. 
What about all the Latin American countries? I have a comment that was 
made by the Argentine President, Carlos Menem, on the so-called rewrite 
of the antiabortion policy. Abortion is illegal in at least 15 of the 
16 countries that attended the Latin American summit.
  He said:

       We renew our commitment to defend human life, in any of its 
     expressions, from the moment of conception until death.

  President Fidel Castro of Cuba was the only Latin American leader to 
differ. He said:

       The decision to abort should be made by the pregnant woman.

  That was Castro's opinion. But 15 out of the 16 Latin American 
leaders said they are prolife, their countries are prolife, and they do 
not want to adopt this policy and do not want Uncle Sam coming in and 
telling them to change their policies. They are predominantly Catholic. 
Why in the world should we try to mandate a policy that has not even 
passed Congress on these Latin American countries?
  What about Egypt, a predominantly Moslem country, 85 percent Moslem? 
They have laws restricting abortion. Why should we tell them they have 
to change their laws? I will tell you, that will help ignite a lot of 
the more radical members of the Moslem community against some of our 
friends and allies. I do not think we want to do that. I do not think 
we want to undermine some of the leaders in Egypt that have been 
working with the United States and who signed a peace agreement with 
Israel. That happens to be the largest Moslem country in the region. 
Why should we do something that would undermine that leadership? I 
think it would be a serious mistake.
  Why should we tell these 95 countries that the United States knows 
best and that they should adopt the proabortion policies this 
administration is advocating? That is a serious mistake.
  The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is on target. We 
need to send this administration a signal and say: You can attend the 
Cairo conference; that is fine. You can participate in it. We can talk 
about world population. But we should not use that conference or the 
United Nations or other multinational organizations to promote United 
States or Clinton administration proabortion policies.
  Let us allow those countries that do have restrictions on abortion to 
continue those. Let us not interfere in their domestic policies and 
priorities.
  I think it is a serious mistake if we do not pass this amendment, and 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator from California yield 
for a unanimous-consent request.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, there have been a number of people who 
wanted to speak on this and a related subject.
  I understand this has been cleared with the ranking member of the 
committee or has been cleared with the Republican leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled to take place at 
11:30 a.m. take place at noon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the honorable chairman.
  Madam President, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this 
debate. Many times constituents say, ``Has it really made any 
difference now that there are more women in the U.S. Senate?''
  This is one of those times that I feel it clearly makes a difference 
because we can join with the men in the U.S. Senate who share our view 
that women are not second-class citizens, that pregnancy-related 
services are matters of health, and, especially in this particular 
case, to speak out against Senator Helms' amendment which is such a 
slap in the face of women all over the world, many of whom are 
struggling for their rights.
  Madam President, I think it is very interesting that in this 
amendment Senator Helms says that nothing in his amendment should stop 
the United States ``from engaging in activities in opposition to 
policies of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.''
  I agree with that. I think the United States should be a sane voice 
for sane policies, and it is not a sane policy to force people to get 
sterilized, men or women, and it is not a sane policy to have coercive 
abortions.
  I am pro-choice. That means it is up to the woman, in consultation 
with her doctor, and her God, whether she is here or anywhere else in 
the world.
  Madam President, I feel very strongly about this amendment. Senator 
Helms' amendment says that U.S. agencies should be able to express our 
views and strongly lobby against forced abortion and forced 
sterilization, a position which I share. But that same amendment says 
that we cannot exert any other influence on policies of other 
countries. That seems to me to be a very radical notion.
  We have fought long and hard here, those of us who are pro-choice, to 
make sure that in our current policy there is an exception for the use 
of Federal funds when a woman's life is at stake or when a woman is 
raped or when there is incest. Madam President, that was not an easy 
fight. As a matter of fact, when I was in the House of Representatives, 
it was my amendment that ensured a rape and incest exemption, because 
nothing could be crueler than forcing a woman to have a child that is 
the product of a rape or the product of incest.
  So I want to know, Madam President, why the Senator from North 
Carolina and his supporters would say in the same resolution that we 
can lobby hard to stop countries from involuntary sterilization and 
coerced abortion and yet not lobby equally as hard if they have laws 
that force women to carry a baby to term that is a product of rape or 
incest.
  And that is exactly what this amendment does. It is radical, and I 
would join with you, Madam President, in opposition to this amendment. 
It is a terrible signal to women all over this world; a terrible signal 
that their life is not worth anything.
  I say it is very fine that you are here to speak on it and that I am 
here to speak on it. I certainly hope other women in the Senate will 
have an opportunity to speak. I know some of them are caught up in the 
Judiciary Committee hearings this morning. I hope that every woman in 
the Senate will speak on it because I think it is an affront to us as 
women that the Senator from North Carolina would have this amendment 
before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, yesterday when the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms] was speaking about his amendment on the 
floor, I know it was of particular concern, that it would not be 
withholding money for attendance at the Cairo Conference. I wanted to 
clarify Mr. Helms' intentions regarding U.S. participation in the 
International Conference on Population and Development and subsequent 
meetings.
  After the Senate's discussion of this, I worked with others in trying 
to propose some language in an attempt to resolve the question. I 
regret to say we have not been able to work out substitute language 
that would be agreeable to everyone. But I believe it was important to 
try to work this out.
  The language proposed by Senator Helms is statutory language. 
However, it seemed to me that changing to a sense-of-the-Congress 
language would be a better way to provide some guidance to our 
delegation to the Cairo Conference about the concerns raised by Senator 
Helms, and which I share to a certain extent. During our participation 
in this international conference I think we need to be mindful and 
sensitive to the diversity of cultures around the world.
  I offered to the Senator from North Carolina a sense-of-the-Congress 
amendment that unfortunately has been rejected. This sense-of-the-
Congress resolution would provide guidance to our representatives 
participating in the 1994 International Conference on Population and 
Development.
  I personally believe that guidance could be a useful expression of 
our consensus as a Congress. My sense-of-the-Congress language 
addressed the issues which the Senator from North Carolina has 
identified as most problematic, specifically: that U.S. participation 
in and support for international family planning activities must not be 
withheld or reduced in countries where abortion is severely restricted 
or prohibited; and, second, that the United States should respect the 
diversity of international cultural and religious traditions and not 
actively attempt to change the abortion laws of countries where 
abortion is severely restricted or prohibited.
  I, Madam President, believe abortion should be legal, but I do think 
we have to be sensitive to the cultures, religions, and customs of 
other countries.
  In addition, the resolution which I proposed specifically stated that 
the United States should be a full and active participant in the Cairo 
Conference and subsequent activities arising from the conferences that 
will occur in the future. It is important, I believe, for us to not 
lose sight of the fact that the 1994 International Conference on 
Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, is not just about family 
planning. It is not about abortion. It is about population and the 
rapid increase of population rates in many areas of the world. It is 
about child survival, migration, sustainable development, and economic 
growth. Each of these issues is of great importance to the United 
States and the world. These issues need to be understood and addressed, 
and we need to be full and active participants in these discussions.
  I believe it is useful for Congress to send some guidance which 
reflects our concerns, to support the delegation that will be attending 
the Cairo Conference.
  I thought it was important for us to do so not in statutory language 
as a sense-of-the-Congress, and I regret that we have not been able to 
get agreement on this.
  I will vote against the language of the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
speak against the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
  This amendment would severely hamper our ability to participate fully 
in the upcoming International Conference on Population and Development 
to be held in Cairo. It would also hamper our ability to participate 
fully in future conferences on population issues.
  What this amendment would do is effectively prohibit representatives 
of the United States from discussing the laws and policies of any 
foreign country with respect to abortion.
  While our representatives in Cairo will not be attempting to change 
the legal status of abortion in any country, they will be strategizing 
on ways to reduce injuries and deaths which result from unsafe 
abortions. It seems to me that the U.S. representatives will not be 
able, under this amendment, even to attempt to find a solution to this 
problem of deaths from abortions, deaths from abortions that take place 
in countries where abortions are forbidden. And if they cannot discuss 
the abortion laws and policies of other countries, obviously they 
cannot get into the problem of the deaths that arise in those countries 
from unsafe abortions.
  Madam President, we have all lived through the agonizing debate and 
discussion on the gag rule and the Mexico City policy, policies which 
prohibited the mere mention of abortion in family planning clinics. 
Fortunately, we are rid of those misguided policies which unfortunately 
held sway for several years here. The amendment before us this morning 
would start us right down that same path of limiting the subjects that 
we may or we may not discuss.
  At the last international conference on population, we came away with 
the onerous Mexico City policy which took us many years to do away 
with. I am pleased that we have an opportunity in Cairo for a fresh 
start. I look forward to the United States taking a lead role in 
reducing the incidents of unsafe abortions, as well as addressing the 
critical issue of population explosion throughout our world. These 
issues simply cannot be addressed without addressing the issue of 
abortion. Let us not tie the hands of our representatives by 
restricting what they can or cannot discuss.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Helms amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield the 
floor?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, just a couple of comments.
  A couple of our colleagues said, ``Well, this will hamper our ability 
to participate''--some people even said we could not go to the Cairo 
Conference, and that is clearly not in the amendment--``and it hampers 
our ability in Cairo.''
  I think that is well and good, if our purpose in Cairo is trying to 
get 95 countries to change their laws to make abortion legal or to make 
it easier or more accessible or more prevalent.
  I mean, we have 1\1/2\ million abortions every year in this country; 
maybe some people want more. We have some restrictions in this country. 
But I think we would kind of resent it if we had other countries coming 
in and saying, ``United States, we really do not like your policy and 
therefore you ought to change it.''
  I think it is very legitimate in the foreign operations bill to say, 
``Wait a minute. We do not want to use U.S. funds to lobby other 
countries to change their law, because we do not think they are 
proabortion enough, or they do not give enough access to abortion, or 
they do not make abortion legal.''
  So my point is, if that is the purpose of the conference, we should 
not be participating in that part of the conference.
  If we want to talk about global population, if we want to talk about 
some of the challenges we face there and other things, fine. But if we 
are going to use it as a method to lobby or trying to convince or use 
the power and prestige of United States to get other countries to 
change their laws, we are going to be really offending a lot of 
countries that are predominantly Moslem or predominantly Catholic, and 
I think that is a serious mistake.
  Mr. President, I have to address one other thing, and that is the 
comment made by a couple of our colleagues in the debate both yesterday 
and today. They said, ``Well, if we don't do this, we will not be able 
to convince countries to have safe abortions, and prevent some of the 
deaths from some of these unsafe abortions.''
  I just ask my colleagues to remember there are two lives at stake. 
How safe is an abortion to unborn children? Well, they are fatal. They 
should remember there are two lives at stake. So, in this interest to 
have safe abortions, they are talking about increasing the number of 
abortions that are fatal to unborn children and I think we need to keep 
that in mind.
  And we also need to keep in mind that we do not want U.S. taxpayers' 
dollars used in the destruction of human life. That happens to be the 
present law. It is not this administration's policy. It is not this 
administration's wish. It happens to be the present law. We will not 
use U.S. funds for abortion. That is the law. They have not changed it 
yet. They want to change it. They testified they want to change it, but 
they have not been successful.
  They want to repeal the Hyde amendment. They have not been 
successful.
  So they are advocating policies that they have not been successful in 
changing in the United States. And they have not been successful in 
changing the law that says, ``Hey, we are not going to use U.S. 
taxpayers' funds in the foreign ops bill for abortion.'' Yet it is 
quite obvious from Mr. Wirth's statement, and also from this State 
Department action cable that went out to all countries urging our 
people to contact the host government so we can convince them that this 
administration policy on abortion is correct. It is not correct. It has 
not passed the Congress. I think it would be a serious mistake, not 
only would it be a serious mistake but it would be fatal to countless 
lives throughout the world if this administration is successful.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the debate on this amendment is basically 
this: Can the United States go to the population conference in Cairo or 
not?
  Now, we are a major, not the major, but we are a major provider of 
foreign aid. We have a lot of other countries that provide more foreign 
aid than we do, certainly as a percentage of their gross domestic 
product. Some countries actually, in the areas where population has 
caused the greatest problems, like sub-Saharan Africa, there are 
countries that provide actually more dollars than we do. In fact, we 
are rather shameful in the treatment of some of the developing 
countries in claiming we help and they look at what we do in other 
aspects of our budget.
  But, be that as it may, we know and our allies know and everybody who 
tries to help these developing countries know that one of the greatest 
problems they face is unchecked population.
  Now I will yield to nobody in my abhorrence of abortion as a method 
of population control or as a method of birth control.
  I hope that some of the money that we are providing to the former 
Soviet Union, especially Russia, would be used to provide safe, 
effective methods of birth control. That is a country that has very 
effectively and I think outrageously used abortion as a method of birth 
control. I should not use the word ``effective,'' because I do not 
consider that as an effective method of birth control, but they do it.
  You have women who have had six, seven and eight abortions. Now that 
is wrong. It is flat out wrong. And I do not think anybody would 
suggest that we not work with Russia, especially as we send foreign aid 
over there, to help them find a better method of birth control, whether 
it is birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, whatever else, things 
that are very expensive, not in easy availability in Russia. We could 
help them with that. Sex education itself, methods of preventing 
conception in the first place, can be done there. But it can be done in 
a lot of other countries.
  Now, does anybody doubt that in Cairo the discussion is going to be 
had on all of these things? There is going to be a discussion of the 
status of women in these developing countries, and I think the United 
States has been the leader in bringing out that there should be a 
heightened status of women. In many of these countries they are treated 
as mere chattel. They have no rights. They certainly have no rights 
over their own reproductive abilities. That has to change.
  There has to be a realization that with proper birth control and 
health and nutrition, that live births can go up in countries and 
children can live past their infancy. Perhaps we can, and I hope would, 
lessen the incidence of abortion worldwide as we bring to countries the 
ability to adopt birth control practices that actually make sense; in 
many instances birth control practices where the countries that provide 
foreign aid could pay the costs.
  What in the United States might seem like a very small cost to carry 
out birth control practices, in other countries could be a very 
significant part of their income. Assuming the types of birth control 
that we would take for granted in this country, assuming they are even 
available, the costs could be too great. These are areas we could help. 
Certainly we ought to be talking to these countries. Nobody expects the 
United States to come over and pound the table, as has almost been 
suggested here, and say, ``You have to start having abortions. You have 
to start adopting this method of birth control. You have to do this, 
that or the other thing.'' That is not going to happen.
  But when, as the chair of the Foreign Operations Committee, I try to 
figure out how we are going to get money to the poorest of the poor in 
these countries; when I am asked how can we find a way to get 
alternative agriculture in so people can raise food to feed their 
families, how do we get in medical help and nutritional help so a poor, 
pregnant woman can go through her pregnancy and deliver a healthy baby; 
no matter how we try to answer these questions we have one dark cloud 
hanging over us. And that is in most of these countries the population 
is expanding so rapidly that it is expanding beyond the ability to even 
help the country. It outstrips the agricultural abilities of the 
country. It outstrips the housing ability. It outstrips the educational 
and medical abilities of these countries. They ought to at least have 
available to them the ability to control their own population size.
  I said here yesterday that by the middle of the next century, only a 
little over 50 years away, at this rate the world's population will 
double. Think of that. Human beings have been on the face of the Earth 
for tens of thousands of years. It has taken us to this point to reach 
one level of population and we can double it in 50 years.
  I am not suggesting a Malthusian paradigm here, by any means. But 
what I am saying is the countries where help is needed the most are the 
countries where the least efforts and abilities exist to control 
populations. Methods of birth control that most American families 
consider as a relatively minor part of their monthly bills are in many 
of these countries something that would wipe out virtually all 
disposable income that family might have.
  Let us see if we can be realistic about this. The United States has 
clear prohibitions in our AID money against money going to use abortion 
as a method of birth control. We have been very straightforward and 
strong in our statements condemning China and other countries that have 
done that. We have made it very clear--many of us have and I have 
personally--to countries like Russia that their use of abortion as a 
method of birth control is abhorrent. It is abhorrent to me as a 
person. It also should be abhorrent to the women of that country to 
think that this is really what is available to them as a method of 
birth control. I suspect most women in these countries would want to 
have other methods of birth control available. This is not something 
where we are going to march out and say, ``Abortion is your magic 
answer.'' Not by any means.
  Each one of us will have to wrestle with our own conscience how we 
feel about abortion. Each of these countries, and the people within 
them, will wrestle with their own consciences how they feel about it. 
But allow the United States to at least join with other countries 
trying to figure out how to control population, how to raise the status 
of women, and how to make it possible to have healthy children that 
might live beyond their infancy. That is the issue.
  The other suggestion made that we are going to be in there offending 
all these countries that come in, telling them what is going on--it is 
such arrogant disdain for these countries to even suggest it. This is a 
condescending statement of the first order. Madam President, do you 
think--does anybody think?--that these countries are sending a group of 
poorly educated, subservient people who will sit there saying, ``Oh, 
yes, the United States wants to do this. We will do this. We will do 
this.'' Baloney. These are concerned men and women coming from each of 
these countries, well educated, who are looking for what is in the best 
interests of their countries. They are not coming in there to be 
suddenly mesmerized by some evil Svengali from the United States who is 
going to tell them what they have to do.
  Everybody who comes there knows they are going to talk about birth 
control. They know they are going to talk about education. They know 
they are going to talk about health and nutrition. They know the 
subject of abortion, of course, will come up. They know the United 
States will follow the law on what it can and cannot talk about.
  But they also know that they have a terrible population problem in a 
lot of these countries, a problem that is far outstripping their 
resources and their ability to feed their people; a problem that is 
making it impossible, many, many times, in many of these countries for 
the average child to live past a couple of years old. In fact, in a 
number of these countries the birth of the child is not even recorded 
until they are a year or 2 or 3 or 4 years old, because the deaths are 
so common.
  Madam President, I cannot justify coming to the U.S. Senate and 
asking my colleagues in the Senate to vote for more foreign aid to 
countries where it is said we will kind of ignore the whole question of 
control of population, but we will send a little bit more money, a 
little bit more money. There is so much we can do in these countries if 
the question of population is at least addressed; not addressed by us 
telling them what they must do, but making choices available to them 
and letting them decide.
  As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am very proud what 
we have developed, through our agricultural research in this country, 
insect resistant crops, crops that can grow in areas with little water 
or sunlight beyond anything that we are used to. All these things can 
help countries feed themselves. But you can only plant so many crops. 
You can only raise so many crops. And the population outstrips that. 
There is no genius in our Agriculture Extension Service or anywhere 
else in the USDA who can make a magic crop that, notwithstanding 
population expansion, notwithstanding whatever damage to the 
environment or soil is done by that, that this crop will somehow make 
it all better.
  So, let our people go to Cairo and if----
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. I will yield for a question in a moment. Let me complete 
this thought.
  If there are those who have differing views, let them also go to 
Cairo and express their views. I know a number of people who have been 
invited. There are still invitations open for those who want to go. I 
have declined an invitation to go because of my responsibility as 
chairman of this and being in another country during the same time. But 
if somebody disagrees with any administration official, go to Cairo and 
let them state their disagreements. Let them be heard.
  I yield, Madam President, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask my friend and colleague --I 
listened to a lot of his statement--was the chairman's comment if we 
adopt this amendment we could not attend the Cairo Conference?
  Mr. LEAHY. In this effect, yes: That we end up spending a lot of 
money for a useless exercise because, as my friend from Oklahoma knows, 
the Cairo Conference is set up to set an ongoing procedure of meetings 
and discussions. Basically, we could get there, I am sure, and say, 
``But we are here under a gag rule for not only discussions at this, 
but certainly it would preclude us or make it a useless expenditure of 
money to go on for any of these discussions and meetings that might 
follow on from Cairo.''
  It would be questionable how we could justify expenditures of anybody 
going there, in effect, because they would be so blocked out of not 
only discussions in Cairo but, obviously, the discussions that would 
follow the meetings that would be set up from the Cairo Conference. 
That is my position.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, if I could just ask the chairman one 
additional question. Is it not correct that the Cairo Conference is in 
September and is covered under the 1994 appropriations bill? The bill 
we are working on right now that would have a prohibition--the Helms 
amendment would prohibit using U.S. funds to lobby other countries to 
change their laws--actually goes into effect October 1 and, therefore, 
would not affect the Cairo Conference that is scheduled in September?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is not so at all. We are talking about legislation. 
This is not an appropriation. In fact, that is one of the problems we 
have with legislation on an appropriations bill. This legislation does 
not say it takes effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year. The 
way this legislation is written it would take effect upon the signing 
of the bill. Can you imagine----
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the chairman----
  Mr. LEAHY. If I could finish. Even if it could be argued that somehow 
it takes effect in the beginning of the next fiscal year, you have 
exactly the situation I just mentioned. What would be the sense of 
going to Cairo, talking about setting up the ongoing meetings, when you 
have this steel wall that goes in place at the very latest October 1, 
but in all likelihood would take place upon the signing of legislation?
  Mr. NICKLES. If the chairman will yield for one final comment. I 
appreciate his indulgence. This language does say ``none of the funds 
appropriated by this act,'' and this is an appropriations bill for 
1995, which does not become effective until October 1 at the earliest. 
So I do not think it would prohibit the actual attendance.
  I appreciate the chairman's remarks about it might have a stifling 
impact as far as the future but, basically, I think it--at least my 
editorial comment would be--I think it should have a stifling impact if 
our purpose in attending Cairo is to lobby other countries to change 
their laws. I think that is inappropriate, and I appreciate the 
chairman yielding.
  Mr. LEAHY. We are dealing with legislation on an appropriations bill. 
We are not dealing with withholding specific funds in the 1995 bill. 
Whichever way, whichever interpretation is correct--the Senator from 
Oklahoma or the Senator from Vermont--the point is still the same: It 
has the obvious not only stifling effect for Cairo, but it really makes 
the attendance an exercise in futility, and that, I understand, is the 
intent of some of the backers of this resolution.
  Just as I have led delegations in my capacity as chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, in my capacity as chairman of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee or my capacity as chairman of the Technology 
and the Law Subcommittee, I led trips to various countries where I 
purposely invited Senators, both Republicans and Democrats--some of 
whom agree with me on some of the issues we are going to discuss but 
some of whom totally disagree with me--because I know that we are going 
to be meeting with heads of States, I know we are going to be meeting 
with foreign ministers, and others, and I want them to hear the kind of 
discussions that we have in a democratic Nation where people disagree 
with each other.
  I led such a trip to parts of the former Soviet Union last year. We 
had--at least if our voting records on some of the issues that have 
come forward are any indicia--we had a number of Senators who have gone 
in numerous directions, certainly not all agreeing with me by any 
means. But we had the opportunity to sit down and have key figures in 
the countries we visited hear that kind of discussion.
  Why not do the same thing in Cairo? If there are Senators who 
disagree with U.S. policy, well, they have a couple shots at this. One, 
of course, is on the floor as this amendment does. They might change 
our policy if their amendment is adopted. I hope it does not because I 
think what it does is say that the United States, the wealthiest Nation 
on Earth, the Nation with the largest economy on Earth, cannot talk 
about population with other countries, even though it is the population 
explosion in many of these countries that is the thing that drives most 
of their requests of us for foreign aid. I think that would be a 
ridiculous situation in which to put the United States.
  But certainly if there are Senators who have a differing view, let 
them go to Cairo, let them express those views in the debates, let them 
tell the other countries, ``Look, here is my idea of what is allowed 
birth control;'' or maybe I feel no birth control is allowed. Let them 
say so. But that is not the policy of this country and this country is 
very specific. The policy is laid down.
  Madam President, I encourage Senators to look at some of the 
requests, look at some of the things we face in the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee. Since I have been chairman of this subcommittee, we have 
cut foreign aid by several billions of dollars. We have had some things 
that should have been cut out, because it is our desire to bring down 
the deficit, something we are finally doing now for the first time in 
years and years. The deficit is coming down, and this is doing its 
part. But when I look at our inability to make any real differences in 
countries we do try to help because we do not address the question of 
population, Madam President, that is not very sensible and that is not 
very realistic.
  Madam President, how much time is there before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Kentucky be allowed to continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be added as cosponsors to the Helms amendment: 
Senators Pressler, Nickles, Smith, and Coats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I strongly support the effort by Senator 
Helms to prevent the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence changes 
in the abortion laws of foreign countries, or to support any resolution 
by a multilateral organization which seeks to change such laws.
  For a number of years, the United States has prohibited Government 
money from going to organizations which administer or promote abortion 
as a method of family planning. Last year, this position changed when 
President Clinton reversed the so-called Mexico City policy. He also 
released U.S. funds to support the United Nations Fund for Population 
Assistance [UNFPA] which has been involved in China's population 
control program of forced abortions and sterilization.
  The Clinton administration has made population control a focal point 
of its foreign policy. In September, the United States will participate 
in the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. 
Over the last several months, as we approach this date, there have been 
international meetings to define the policy statement to be adopted at 
the Conference.
  Since last year, I have been troubled by news accounts and statements 
by administration officials which show a disturbing pattern. In its 
efforts to promote policies to stabilize world population, the 
administration is advocating a position which encourages greater use of 
abortion abroad.
  Although President Clinton said, when meeting with the Pope at the 
Vatican in early June, that he does not believe abortion should be a 
method of family planning, statements, and actions by administration 
officials indicate a policy of just the opposite.
  Timothy Wirth, Counselor to the President, has become the point man 
on international population programs. In a speech in 1993, he revealed 
the ultimate objective of the administration at the Cairo meeting. 
``The U.S. Government believes the Cairo conference would be remiss if 
it did not develop recommendations and guidance with regard to 
abortion. Our position is to support reproductive choice, including 
access to safe abortion.''
  Earlier this year he stated ``* * *  A determined cooperative effort 
must be launched to make * * * reproductive health services universally 
available.''
  Administration Spokesperson Dee Dee Myers said that the Clinton 
administration regards abortion as ``part of the overall approach to 
population control.''
  Likewise, Victor Marrero in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly in 
1993 said ``Family planning programs should be viewed as part of a 
broader reproductive health program which also addresses closely 
related programs such as * * * safe abortion * * *.''
  Brian Atwood, Director of the Agency for International Development, 
said in regard to the population control policy: ``* * * This 
administration will continue to stand for the principle of reproductive 
choice, including access to safe, voluntary abortion.''
  This policy, as articulated by administration officials, directly 
contravenes the consensus statement reached at the 1984 Mexico City 
meeting. That is that ``abortion in no way should be promoted as a 
method of family planning.''
  It also contradicts statements included in the U.N. Convention for 
the Rights of the Child supported by the Clinton administration. ``The 
child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special 
safeguards, and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as 
well as after birth.''
  What is most troubling about this stance is the administration's 
determined effort to export their abortion ideology to other nations.
  A March cable from the State Department to our overseas diplomatic 
posts directed Government officials to advance U.S. population policy 
interests through ``senior level diplomatic interventions.'' These 
interests include, according to the cable, ``a comprehensive strategy * 
* * to ensure universal access to family planning and related 
reproductive health services, including access to safe abortion.''
  In addition it reads that ``the United States believes it is 
important to improve both the quantity and quality of family planning 
and reproductive health services. We would like the Cairo document to 
emphasize the goal of universal access to such services.''
  Let there be no mistake in understanding, when such terms as ``access 
to safe abortion, reproductive health, and reproductive choice'' are 
used they are but thinly veiled attempts to disguise a policy meant to 
promote abortion as a method of family planning.
  ``However cleverly the Cairo document may be crafted, in fact it 
continues to advocate abortion as a way of controlling population 
growth * * *'' wrote Washington Archbishop James Cardinal Hickey and 
six United States archbishops in a letter to the President on May 28.
  The pursuit of such a policy abroad directly undermines the laws of 
approximately 100 countries which have abortion restrictions in place.
  According to a 1990 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the 
research arm of planned parenthood, ``some 53 countries * * * 
containing 25 percent of the world's population, fall into the most 
restrictive category,'' where abortions are prohibited except when the 
woman's life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.
  In another category, 42 countries, comprising 12 percent of the 
world's populations, have statutes authorizing abortion on broader 
medical grounds * * * but not for social indications alone or on 
request.
  In most Muslim countries and in Latin America and Africa, few legal 
abortions are performed under the health exception. These laws cover 
approximately 37 percent of the world's population, over 2 billion 
people.
  The emphasis which our Government places on abortion as a fundamental 
human right of all women will mean that in the future these countries' 
foreign aid could well be jeopardized if they refuse to succumb to U.S. 
pressure or adhere to the Cairo document. Placing such a demand on 
other nations is unconscionable. And yet it is clear that that is where 
we are headed.
  In declaring further in the State Department cable that ``The United 
States believes that access to safe, legal, and voluntary abortion is a 
fundamental right of all women ***.'' We are telling nations that 
abortion is a human rights requirement.
  The next obvious step is to penalize, perhaps by restricting foreign 
aid, these nations for failing to comply with our policy. Already a 
number of countries have expressed concern about where such language 
will lead. Humberto Belli, Nicaraguan Minister of Education, has said 
he feared that not only the United States but international agencies 
such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund would make 
adoption of policies that are in harmony with the Cairo document a 
condition for getting aid.
  President Carlos Menem of Argentina has also objected to the 
language. In a letter he wrote to the Pope he said:

       Population and development objectives should be a matter of 
     competency and of sovereignty of each country, according to 
     the orientation and basis of its national policies, guided by 
     respect for human dignity and the free and responsible choice 
     of individuals *** population policies should be conceived in 
     consonance with the ethical and cultural values of each 
     particular society *** in no circumstance should abortion be 
     promoted or considered as a method of family planning.

  Mr. President, the Helms amendment is reasonable restraint on our 
Government. I hope this body joins in support of this approach. We need 
to send a clear signal that in no way should the United States 
participate in a policy which seeks to change the laws of other 
nations--laws founded upon deep cultural and religious beliefs.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to further discuss some 
points that were brought up in yesterday's debate on this amendment 
introduced by my fine friend from North Carolina. As I said yesterday, 
even though this amendment does not specifically mention the 1994 Cairo 
Conference--and I know that was not the Senator's intent--it is written 
broadly enough to prohibit the United States from participating in the 
coming Global Population Conference in Cairo.
  But, more importantly this amendment would go even further and 
prohibit the United States from participating in any future resolution 
or multilateral activity which even remotely touches upon the subject 
of abortion. It would prohibit participation in any future 
international conferences, programs, research activities or reports 
that pertain to women's health, migration, refugees, and so on. For 
example, two future international conferences would be affected: the 
World Social Summit that will be held later this year and the Women's 
Conference in Beijing, that will be held in 1995. This amendment would 
certainly have a chilling effect on all of the State Department's 
activities pertaining to international population.
  The United States has played a significant role at all of the 
preparatory conferences leading up to the Cairo Conference and is 
expected to be, and should be, a leader at the conference and in future 
international population conferences.
  Over the past decade, the United States has more recently had its 
hands tied in terms of acting on the challenge of increasing population 
growth, and its impact on the environment, the global economy, and 
international standards of living. I am gratified to see this 
administration's renewed interest in these issues.
  This is an important point to make. Even if the funds in this bill 
are not appropriated until October 1--the beginning of the fiscal year, 
the policies contained in this amendment would set a dangerous 
precedent. The State Department would once again have its hands tied 
because any of its deliberations and activities leading to the 
Conference, during the conference and after the Conference would be 
affected. Any follow-up activities that are agreed to by all 110-member 
nations at the Conference could not be implemented by the State 
Department.
  As I stated yesterday, I plan to be a part of the U.S. delegation 
when the United States travels to Cairo this September. And, I strongly 
believe the United States should be leading the international community 
in a unified effort to meet the severe challenges involved with the 
issues of global population, economic opportunity, and sustainable 
development.
  This administration has articulated its view on abortion numerous 
times: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. The United States will 
continue to articulate this position at the Cairo Conference.

  The administration is not going over to Cairo to vigorously and 
continuously lobby other countries to change or alter their laws or 
policies concerning the circumstances under which abortion is 
permitted, regulated, or prohibited in these countries.
  President Clinton reiterated this position in a recent speech on June 
29 by stating:

       We do not support abortion as a method of family planning. 
     We respect the diversity of national laws, except we do 
     oppose coercion wherever it exists.
       In other countries, where abortion does exist, we believe 
     safety is an important issue. We also believe that providing 
     women with means to prevent unwanted pregnancy will do more 
     than anything else to reduce abortion.

  Most importantly, the U.S. position on population that will be 
articulated at the Cairo Conference is not about abortion policy. It is 
about ensuring access to high-quality family planning and related 
reproductive health services, increasing child survival programs, 
addressing migration and environmental degradation, strengthening 
families, and addressing the needs of adolescents.
  It would be a real shame if the United States could not resume its 
leadership in global efforts to achieve responsible and sustainable 
population levels.
  I earnestly feel that this amendment would prohibit the United States 
from playing a key role in this International Conference and in 
subsequent international population activities and conferences. It is 
not consistent with our leadership responsibilities regarding this 
critical global problem. I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2253.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2253) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2245

  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now before the Senate is 
amendment No. 2245, offered by the Republican leader, Mr. Dole.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not know if they are ready to go to a 
vote on that. Yesterday, I discussed on the floor, as has Senator 
McConnell and others, our concern about crime in the former Soviet 
Union. I mentioned discussions I had with Director Freeh prior to his 
trip over to Russia and other countries.
  It was the intention of Senator McConnell, Senator D'Amato, and 
myself, to have an amendment that would earmark specific funds to be 
used as part of our aid package to Russia, in helping to fight crime 
there, something that would be done on my part because of the 
tremendous respect I have for Director Freeh and the way he has run the 
FBI, and the enormous need for help, and because I am convinced that 
Director Freeh and the FBI could help considerably in Russia, the 
former Soviet Union, to get ahold of the major crime problem they have.
  So, Mr. President, I ask my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, if he 
could let us know, should we be prepared to go forward on the Dole 
amendment, or should we set that aside and go to this?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Vermont that 
the Senator from New York is here with an amendment on crime in Russia, 
and I have one as well. Our plan had been to offer and discuss them in 
tandem and vote on both. So we are ready to go on those issues.
  Mr. LEAHY. I also see the Senator from Florida, who was here earlier 
to speak on the pending amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We would also be willing to have a short time 
agreement on this, and we can get a couple of votes out of the way. If 
our colleague from Florida could indulge us, that would be a good way 
to move this bill forward.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am shortly going to propound a unanimous-
consent agreement. So that people understand what it is going to be, I 
am going to ask for a relatively short amount of time to deal with two 
amendments on crime that will require the setting aside of the pending 
amendment, but it would then be our intention that once those crime 
amendments are disposed of, we would then go back to the Dole-Warner 
Haiti amendment and will stay on that until it is disposed of.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment, the Dole-Warner amendment, be temporarily set aside, that it 
then be in order for the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from New 
York, and myself, to bring forward amendments on which there will be a 
time agreement of 40 minutes to be equally divided between the Senator 
from Kentucky and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2263

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator D'Amato, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and 
     Mr. D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 2263.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section entitled ``Assistance to the New 
     Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' add a new 
     subsection:

     Not less than $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be made available to the International 
     Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) 
     to undertake a police development and training program to 
     assist in institutional reforms and improve the professional 
     capabilities of Russian police agencies: Provided further, 
     That funds made available shall be used to support the 
     following activities:
       (1) develop and professionalize the criminal justice 
     agencies;
       (2) improve criminal investigative and forensic 
     capabilities;
       (3) establish-institutional training capabilities based on 
     democratic principles of policing, and respect for human 
     rights and the rule of law;
       (4) improve accountability of law enforcement agencies by 
     introducing systems and procedures for investing allegations 
     of abuse or malfeasance;


                           Amendment No. 2264

     (Purpose: To provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation with 
     $15,000,000 to be earmarked for international law enforcement 
     cooperation with the New Independent States of Eastern Europe)

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Leahy, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr. 
     McConnell, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2264.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated for the New Independent 
     States of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, not to 
     exceed $15,000,000, shall be made available to the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation for transnational and international 
     law enforcement cooperation with the New Independent States 
     of the former Soviet Union and the emerging democracies of 
     Eastern Europe to combat organized crime.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, presently, one of the greatest threats 
facing democracy in Russia, and indeed in Europe, is the rapid 
expansion of organized crime. The situation is so bad that organized 
crime literally threatens to undermine the very democracy that the 
United States and the West seek to protect through their assistance 
programs and, more so, by connection, our own security.
  Let me read to you, if I might, a letter I received from the Director 
of the FBI, Louis Freeh, dated June 23, 1994. We had discussed this, 
and I think that the Director's trip to Russia amplifies his concern, 
in a very vivid way, that the problems of organized crime in Russia are 
so great that democracy is threatened. There are those who say: We are 
better off in the old ways. We at least had stability and did not have 
to worry about our safety. We were not being robbed and mugged or have 
financial institutions which are being threatened, which is the case 
today.
  So it is with that in mind that he sent the letter to me in which he 
said:

       Dear Senator D'Amato: Thank your for advising me of your 
     efforts to earmark funding for law enforcement assistance and 
     training for the Newly Independent States and emerging 
     democracies in Eastern Europe.
       It is critical that the FBI and other criminal justice 
     agencies begin a long-term commitment to international law 
     enforcement. Major problems which demand our immediate 
     attention involve the possible theft of nuclear weapons or 
     nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union, the emergence 
     and spread of organized crime and drug trafficking groups 
     from Russia and Eurasia and the growth of similar Neo-Nazi 
     hate groups in the United States and Germany.
       As you know, I am leading a Federal law enforcement 
     delegation traveling to Europe on June 24th. Meetings with 
     senior law enforcement officials of 11 European and Eurasian 
     nations have been scheduled through July 6th. These important 
     discussions will forge the framework for what I believe will 
     be unprecedented levels of international law enforcement 
     cooperation.
       During my visit to Russia, I will open the FBI's new Legal 
     Attache post in Moscow. This trip also provides a unique 
     opportunity for me to see first-hand where additional FBI 
     presence is needed in the Newly Independent States and 
     Eastern Europe.
       I am greatly encouraged by the support that these efforts 
     to enhance international law enforcement have garnered and I 
     look forward to keeping you and other Members of Congress 
     abreast of our progress in these crucial areas.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Louis J. Freeh,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. President, let me say that it does not make much sense to invest 
billions of dollars in helping to stabilize the Eastern bloc and Russia 
in particular and have these efforts undermined by this kind of 
organized crime which is involved in everything from terrorism to drug 
trafficking to forgery, to contract killings, and indeed there are 
connections with these Russian gangs from Russia right here into this 
country.
  Indeed, in New York, the organized Russian gangs in Brighton Beach 
have become very much involved in violence on a large scale. The local 
FBI and law enforcement officers indicate to us they are into all kinds 
of criminal activity, intimidation, blackmail, gasoline tax scams, 
insurance frauds, drug trafficking, forgery, and, as I mentioned 
before, even contract killings. They have their ties to and roots in 
Russia.
  That is why we offer this amendment in a bipartisan manner to say 
that we can utilize the capacities of the FBI and their training 
abilities to help our Russian brethren, for otherwise the very 
stability of any kind of government and particularly one which is 
trying to nurture democracy, will be and is being undermined.
  Bankers today are threatened if they are successful. They or their 
families are kidnapped, or worse, killed. Entrepreneurs in every area 
are regularly having to pay extortion money to organized crime in what 
used to be the Soviet Union, and they face the prospect of death to 
themselves or to their families if they fail to cooperate.
  The fact is that the Russians do not have the kind of management in 
this area to deal with this. They have gone from an autocratic society 
to one now in which the instrumentalities of control, in many cases, 
have been totally lost and that vacuum has been filled by organized 
crime.
  Let me conclude by saying about these funds, because some of our 
colleagues were concerned how these funds would be used. We have agreed 
with the appropriators, specifically the Commerce, State, Justice 
Subcommittee, as to the appropriate language. With these funds, the FBI 
will be able to initiate international cooperation on a level 
heretofore not seen in international law enforcement. The FBI will be 
able to provide training in organized crime and related investigative 
matters, forensic and other advanced investigative technological 
support, and continue the goodwill efforts begun with Director Freeh's 
visits to the region, because the countries of Eastern Europe are 
facing the Russian crime gangs first before they come here. This type 
of cooperation is vitally necessary and unprecedented in the history of 
law enforcement.
  Mr. President, this earmark is a good one and it is appropriate.
  I thank both the managers, the chairman and the ranking member, of 
the bill, Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell, for their strong support 
and for their contribution to bringing us to this point.
  Again, it makes little sense to be investing billions of dollars and 
not allocating some scarce resources to see to it that we can take on 
the organized crime efforts which are undermining the opportunity for 
democracy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New York for his involvement and leadership in this most important 
issue, as well as my friend and colleague Chairman Leahy.
  Many of our colleagues may have seen an article in the Atlantic 
Monthly of June of this year entitled ``The Wild East'' by Seymour 
Hersh, and on the cover of the Atlantic Monthly it says, ``Organized 
crime has strangled business in Russia and is now reaching for the 
nation's nuclear stockpile.''
  We are talking about a very, very serious problem here, as Senator 
D'Amato has pointed out.
  This is an extremely depressing article about the state of law and 
order in Russia. As the Senator from New York has pointed out, it has 
even reached into the United States. Russian organized crime here. Of 
course, it is obviously more rampant in Russia and the countries 
surrounding that area.
  Each of us has spoken with the Director of the FBI. I did yesterday 
morning. He just got back from a trip to that part of the world. We are 
working with the Russians to try to help them. Obviously, it is an 
enormous problem. But the United States through the FBI is reaching out 
to try to help.
  Both the amendments that we are discussing which we will vote on back 
to back at the end of this time agreement deal with the question of 
crime in Russia.
  Mr. President, as we deal with the issue of how to encourage private 
investment in Russia and effectively administer United States aid to 
Russia, we need to take a clear-eyed look at the growing problem of 
crime that I have just outlined earlier.
  Of course, nearly every country has some sort of crime problem. 
Certainly we do. It is the No. 1 issue in the United States. All the 
polls indicate that. We are trying to grapple with that problem here at 
home.
  But there are many who are concerned that the crime problem in Russia 
has evolved to the point where it literally threatens to disrupt 
consistent private economic engagement with Russia, as well as the 
provision of foreign assistance that we are discussing in this bill.
  Last summer, when Chairman Leahy and I visited Moscow, issues of 
crime and law enforcement were already weighing heavily on the minds of 
people there. Businessmen told us stories of Mafia shakedowns, and told 
how they all traveled with heavily armed bodyguards.
  I remember talking to one American businessman in Kiev who said he 
got a phone call, and he has gotten a number of them over the months, 
but this particular phone call he had remembered. He ignored the 
requests for $5,000. He just called him often and said, ``I want 
$5,000.'' He essentially ignored the request that had gone on for a 
couple weeks. This final time he got a phone call the guy said: ``I 
want $5,000. If you don't give it to me, I'm going to kill your 
secretary.'' He said, ``It got my attention.'' That is how rampant this 
problem is.
  The diplomatic community swapped horror stories of being stopped by 
local policemen. So it is a problem of the police as well. They are not 
paid very well there. They are obviously very subject to bribery and 
other activities.
  Among the things that happened in our diplomatic community over 
there, Americans are stopped by local policemen and threatened with on-
the-spot drunk driving blood tests, administered with a dirty needle, 
unless they are willing to pay the fine up front. That is the police.
  It is a year later, and we are starting to hear more than just those 
individual horror stories.
  FBI Director Freeh recently testified that the United States is 
threatened by a major international criminal community, operating out 
of Russia, which the Senator from New York was talking about, that is 
engaged in drug trafficking, money laundering and even smuggling 
nuclear weaponry. Let me repeat, Mr. President. We are talking about 
even smuggling nuclear weaponry. I mean, it could be argued this is the 
most serious crime problem in the world that potentially affects all of 
us.
  CIA Director Woolsey testified that there may be as many as 5,700 
organized crime groups operating in Russia--5,700 organized crime 
groups operating in Russia. Of those, Director Woolsey's words, ``200 
are large, sophisticated organizations engaged in criminal activity 
throughout the former Soviet Union and 29 other countries.''
  So this is not a mom and pop criminal operation, Mr. President. We 
are talking about sophisticated organized crime operating on an 
international basis.
  And the problem is far broader than organized crime controlling 
illicit activities like drug trafficking and money laundering. The 
pervasive reach of these organized crime rings extends into otherwise 
legitimate business activities as well, corrupting the entire economic 
infrastructure.
  I referred earlier to the article in the Atlantic Monthly. Seymour 
Hersh painted a brutal portrait of how crime has affected every single 
aspect of Russian life. Much of the information he detailed was 
corroborated in a report by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs 
and the DOE Threat Assessment conducted last November.
  According to Seymour Hersh, roughly 40 percent of private businesses 
and 60 percent of state-owned enterprises are corrupted by organized 
crime. Half of all the Russian banks and up to 80 percent of the 
hotels, shops, warehouses, and service industries in Moscow are run by 
the Russian Mafia.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Half of all the Russian banks and 
up to 80 percent of the hotels, shops, warehouses, and service 
industries in Moscow are run by the Russian Mafia, according to Seymour 
Hersh. Just as troubling is the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the 
private enterprises are victims of extortion--70 to 80 percent of the 
emerging private enterprises are victims of extortion.
  No wonder he picked the title for the article, ``The Wild East.'' We 
had ``The Wild West'' here for awhile. This is a serious problem.
  Criminal activity has also seeped in to the Russian police and 
military forces, adding another layer of harassment and danger for 
business.
  In 1993, about 3,000 army officers were disciplined for 
``questionable business practices''--the army now--and 46 generals 
faced court-martial for corruption.
  Sy Hersh goes on to point out:

       Russian armories are physically deteriorating and are 
     guarded by soldiers whose indifference makes them vulnerable 
     to criminal elements.

  Why should this matter? Well, Hersh says:

       There is powerful evidence that organized crime in the 
     former Soviet Union has been systematically seeking access to 
     the nuclear stockpiles, with their potential for huge 
     profits.

  Now, bear in mind we are talking about organized crime trying to get 
ahold of nuclear stockpiles. Is there any, Mr. President, potentially 
scarier development in the world than that? I would argue not.

       There is strong evidence that the Russian Government is 
     unable to account for all of its bombs and all of its 
     weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.

  Rising crime in the Soviet Union presents a direct threat to our 
security--our security, here. It also makes it virtually impossible for 
the private sector over there to invest and to grow.
  As President Yeltsin noted in his State of the Union Address, crime 
and corruption must be tackled, and tackled soon. Failure to provide 
meaningful and immediate relief will generate both an antimarket and 
antidemocracy backlash over there.
  As we debate this bill, Judge Freeh has just returned from the 
region, as we have discussed, after opening a new FBI legal attache 
office in Moscow. Prior to his departure, Senator D'Amato and I sent a 
letter advising him we intended to earmark funds to support his 
important efforts to lay the groundwork for further law enforcement 
cooperation.
  Chairman Leahy has also been heavily involved in this and help shape 
our views.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter that Senator D'Amato and I 
sent to Judge Freeh, and his response, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 1994.
     Hon. Louis Freeh,
     Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC.
       Dear Louis: We understand that you are leaving for Russia 
     at the end of this week for further discussions about joint 
     efforts to combat crime in the former Soviet Union. We 
     appreciate the fact that the Russians are eager to address 
     this problem of compelling mutual concern. We thought it 
     would be helpful if you knew of our intention to introduce 
     two amendments during consideration of the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill when it comes to the Senate floor.
       First, we intend to earmark $15 million for an 
     International Crime Investigative Training Assistance Program 
     (ICITAP). Recently released statistics illustrate why 
     Russians consider crime one of the greatest problems they 
     face; 5,600 criminal gangs have been identified and over 
     25,000 crimes were committed involving firearms. We believe 
     an ICITAP program could make an important contribution both 
     developing and professionalizing the criminal justice 
     agencies. In particular, we would like to see the Bureau 
     assist in training which would improve investigative and 
     forensic capabilities as well as strengthening institutional 
     accountability within agencies to prevent corruption.
       Second, we intend to direct that $15 million in funds be 
     provided to the Bureau to open Legal Attache offices in 
     Eastern Europe and the republics of the New Independent 
     States. Reports of the significant increase in transnational 
     threats such as terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and 
     smuggling of nuclear material and weapons suggests a vital 
     role for the Bureau in the region to protect U.S. security 
     and interests.
       We would appreciate any thoughts you may have on these 
     amendments and look forward to working with you in the coming 
     months to assure the Bureau has the resources necessary to 
     address these urgent priorities.
       Sincerely,
     Mitch McConnell,
       U.S. Senator, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Foreign 
     Operations.
     Alfonse D'Amato,
       U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                              Federal Bureau of Investigation,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: Thank you for advising me of your 
     efforts to earmark funding for law enforcement assistance and 
     training for the Newly Independent States and emerging 
     democracies in Eastern Europe.
       It is critical that the FBI and other criminal justice 
     agencies begin a long-term commitment to international law 
     enforcement. Major problems which demand our immediate 
     attention involve the possible theft of nuclear weapons or 
     nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union, the emergence 
     and spread of organized crime and drug trafficking groups 
     from Russia and Eurasia and the growth of similar Neo-Nazi 
     hate groups in the United States and Germany.
       As you know, I am leading a Federal law enforcement 
     delegation traveling to Europe on June 24th. Meetings with 
     senior law enforcement officials of 11 European and Eurasian 
     nations have been scheduled through July 6th. These important 
     discussions will forge the framework for what I believe will 
     be unprecedented levels of international law enforcement 
     cooperation.
       During my visit to Russia, I will open the FBI's new Legal 
     Attache post in Moscow. This trip also provides an unique 
     opportunity for me to see first-hand where additional FBI 
     presence is needed in the Newly Independent States and 
     Eastern Europe.
       I am greatly encouraged by the support that these efforts 
     to enhance international law enforcement have garnered and I 
     look forward to keeping you and other Members of Congress 
     abreast of our progress in these crucial areas.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Louis J. Freeh,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. McCONNELL. As I indicated earlier, I spoke with Judge Freeh about 
his trip and asked him how serious the problem was. His response was 
somewhat surprising. He said:

       The problem is huge--in fact greater than we anticipated. 
     Democracy is on the edge. The ultra-nationalists are 
     exploiting the perception that democracy is failing because 
     the government cannot protect the basic safety of its 
     citizens.

  The Russian Government cannot protect the basic safety of its 
citizens.
  He went on to elaborate on the scope of the problem--there are no 
organized crime or racketeering laws, so even if you catch a crook--
this is Judge Freeh talking about the Russian circumstance--even if you 
catch a crook, there is not a lot that can be done with him. Police 
officers are paid a few hundred dollars a month, which, as I indicated 
earlier, obviously makes them vulnerable to bribes and corruption. And 
the problem does not stop at the Russian border. At least 300 of the 
more than 5,000 criminal groups operating in Russia have established 
transnational ties; in other words, they are operating outside of 
Russia. Judge Freeh said every country he visited--from Poland to 
Ukraine to the Baltic Nations--every one is overwhelmed by the same 
problems--and a great deal of criminal activity can be traced right 
back to Russia.
  Officials in every country he visited pleaded with him to open legal 
attache offices, establish joint law enforcement strategies, and 
provide access to our FBI Academy over here.
  Mr. President, they understand the full dimensions of the problem 
they are up against and they are eager to have our help.
  I believe Judge Freeh deserves our support in this effort--that it is 
in our direct national interest to assure the effective training of 
Russian law enforcement officers and to establish a professional 
criminal justice system from judges to juries. Unless we earmark the 
funds, he, the director of the FBI, will not have the resources 
necessary to combat crime and secure our interests.
  For that reason, Senator D'Amato and I have offered two amendments, 
which we are discussing, that I view as mutually reinforcing in 
tackling present issues of crime and corruption.
  The first amendment, which Senator D'Amato has joined in 
cosponsoring, will earmark $15 million for the International Criminal 
Investigative Training Assistance Program [ICITAP]. To date, nominal 
ICITAP resources have been dedicated to training programs in Russia to 
improve investigative, forensic and other basic professional police 
skills.
  The second amendment, which the Senator from New York offered and 
will be voted on shortly, will transfer $15 million to the FBI to carry 
out joint law enforcement training and activities. Originally, Senator 
D'Amato and I planned the funds to be dedicated to opening legal 
attache offices throughout the NIS and Eastern Europe. However, 
bureaucratic interagency infighting, combined with the urgency of the 
problems abroad, suggest we should be more flexible. It could take 
months and months of negotiations between State and the FBI before 
legal attache offices could be established abroad. As we work toward 
establishing permanent offices, it is a good idea for the FBI to be 
given the opportunity to move forward with the training and exchange 
programs to fill the enormous law enforcement gap.
  Mr. President, the crime problem has a direct and devastating impact 
on the willingness of American companies to invest in the Russian 
economy--which, in turn, prevents job creation and economic growth, 
both of which are essential to the future of Russia.
  Moreover, this is not just an isolated Russian problem. Judge Freeh 
concluded our conversation by saying the Russian problem is our 
problem--there is strong evidence that Russian groups have established 
ties with the Cali cartel and is exporting cocaine into the United 
States.
  I think we all believe Judge Freeh is on the right track. The 
question to me is whether the administration will support his efforts 
to solve the problems. These earmarks are a stopgap effort to assure 
some initiative is taken with the hope that a strategy will emerge and 
be implemented.
  So, Mr. President, we offer these amendments, even though we expect 
they will be approved overwhelmingly, to bring the Senate, in effect, 
up to date on a most, most serious problem.
  I particularly want to thank the chairman for his involvement and 
leadership in this issue, as well. This is an extremely, extremely 
serious problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. As I understand it, 
the first amendment that will be voted on is the one submitted by Mr. 
D'Amato, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Domenici, and myself, that would transfer 
$15 million to the FBI?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first amendment to be voted on is 
amendment No. 2264 by Senator D'Amato--the Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  I have spoken already on the problem of crime in Russia. I have 
followed this with a great deal of interest, both in my trips there and 
in discussions I have had with Director Freeh and others. I am 
concerned at the degree of crime. I am concerned, of course, that AID 
money goes to the wrong places. I am also concerned, if you have an air 
of criminal activity as a part of the lifestyle, it makes it impossible 
to go forward in the way we should with efforts to improve democracy.
  As a former prosecutor, I well realize the need for a judicial system 
that works. AID is working in this area. They have had training for 
judges, prosecutors and lawyers. They work on creating an independent 
judicial system, drafting new laws and procedures, working to 
reintroduce a trial by jury system, and drafting a new civil code. 
There are a lot of things that have to be done and there are a lot of 
things that are being done.
  I discussed this with Director Freeh. I believe the FBI can bring its 
expertise, and that is why I support this amendment.
  I told yesterday of the situation, as reported in our press, of a car 
driving up in front of an office and people stepping out of that car 
and firing automatic weapons into the ground-floor office until a 
secretary opens a drawer, pulls out a grenade, pulls the pin, and rolls 
it under the car.
  Crime is becoming a bit too much of a way of life when you file 
grenades in your filing drawer. I do not know whether you do it under B 
for ``boom'' or G for ``grenade'' or what.
  I know in our office we have file drawers with pens and papers and 
stamps, and this, that, and the other thing. Even in my days as a 
prosecutor, we never had a filing drawer with grenades.
  If it comes to the point that, to get a job, they ask how fast do you 
take dictation and what kind of an arm do you have for throwing a 
grenade--this is kind of bad.
  A lot can be done. A lot will be done. I am concerned about the rise 
of criminal activity. I think Russia was right to move forward as they 
have in privatization but, obviously, like everybody else, I am 
concerned about how fast crime has risen in this country. Those of us 
who have served in law enforcement, as well as those who have not, have 
to understand how the tentacles of crime destroy a judicial system, 
destroy a commercial code, destroy a free enterprise system, and 
destroy the trust people have in their government. Organized crime is 
moving into all areas, from law enforcement to the private enterprise 
system. There is probably nothing that can work more against democracy 
in Russia, more against the security of the people, more against the 
kind of economic basis they need than the spread of crime.
  I will support this amendment. I am about to yield the remainder of 
my time so we can go to the vote. During the vote, I urge cosponsors of 
the second amendment, which is related, and which I also support, to 
see if it is possible to do that on a voice vote. If not, I hope we 
could have the rollcall as quickly as possible, just to make things 
easier.
  Before I yield the remainder of my time, I yield whatever time the 
Senator from Kentucky wishes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend, the Senator from Vermont, my 
thought was we would have rollcalls back to back, one 15 minutes and 
one 10, and then move on. I think we need the yeas on both of the 
amendments.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have one amendment now before us. I ask 
unanimous consent it be in order to order the yeas and nays en bloc on 
that amendment and on the second amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays en bloc on both 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that, upon the completion of the 
rollcall vote on the first amendment, we go immediately to a rollcall 
vote on the second amendment, and the second rollcall vote be a 10-
minute rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment, No. 2264.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2264) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2263 offered by the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. McConnell]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The Chair will advise that this is a 10-minute rollcall vote.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2263) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2245

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now before the Senate is 
amendment No. 2245 offered by the Republican leader, Mr. Dole.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not have much more to say on this 
amendment. It is a question of whether we want the facts or not. If you 
do not want the facts, vote against it. Or you can take 45 days to get 
the facts with a bipartisan factfinding commission.
  I do not think it would do anything but help all of us who are very 
concerned about Haiti and very concerned about our policy there. There 
are no easy answers. I have listened to the distinguished Senator from 
Florida, Senator Graham, on the floor, and on ``Crossfire,'' and other 
programs. Certainly, he understands the problem there very well.
  I want to clear up just one issue. I do not care what General Cedras 
or the other thugs running Haiti think about this or any other 
proposal. I do not check with Cedras or Aristide, or any other Haitians 
on my view of American national interests. I have never met with 
Aristide, and he has never asked to meet with me. I do not check with 
him or anybody else. That is what the Haiti policy is all about--our 
national interests.
  Those who support invasion and nation building in Haiti have an 
obligation to say what interests are at stake. Is it because we are so 
close to Haiti? That is certainly not the reason. Are any Americans 
being threatened? None. There are a lot of rumors and stories, and 
maybe some distortions.
  I agree completely with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Nunn, who said this morning:

       If the mission is to alleviate the refugee problem, then I 
     think we first ought to try adjusting the sanction policy * * 
     * but if the mission is to restore democracy, that's a 
     different mission. It is not primarily a military mission. It 
     is a nation-building mission. And we need to think through 
     that one very carefully.

  We just went through a nation-building exercise in Somalia. Many of 
us supported President Clinton when he decided to withdraw, and he had 
wide support because we had deviated from the original course, from 
humanitarian aid to nation building. But that was done by the United 
Nations. Here, it seems to me, we are going to set it out as our own 
course.
  We invaded Haiti once this century to reverse a military coup. After 
100 American casualties and 19 years, America left Haiti. And Haiti 
returned to violence and anarchy. In my view, we ought to spend some 
time learning lessons from that intervention before beginning a new 
one.
  Before we get engaged in nation-building in Haiti, we ought to listen 
to Haiti's democratic parliamentarians. We ought to look at Aristide's 
leadership in power and in exile. And we ought to look at why 
reconciliation has not worked in Haiti. That is exactly what a 
commission would do. If you oppose this commission, you are saying no 
to the facts and yes to writing a blank check for military invasion and 
nation building in Haiti.
  The administration opposes the amendment, and I do not know why. 
Maybe they are afraid of an objective assessment. Maybe they do not 
want to know the facts and they like it the way it is. There is a lot 
of rhetoric, and every night on television Mr. Gray, or somebody else, 
says that an invasion is not imminent--whatever imminent means. Maybe 
they have decided what they want to do, and maybe they want to wait 
until Congress is in recess, or some other time, before taking final 
action. Maybe it is a setup to make invasion the only option after 
creating a refugee crisis. Certainly, this was created by the 
administration's policy. They have had a number of policies in Haiti.
  Quoting from the New York Times of 1 week ago--and I do not quote 
from them frequently--it reads:

       After months of vacillating from one policy to another, 
     America faces the troubling prospect that Mr. Clinton is 
     drifting into using troops in Haiti because he wants to 
     compensate for policy embarrassments and does not have a 
     better idea.

  That is exactly what the New York Times said, and they are not 
exactly a Republican mouthpiece in this country. That is their 
conclusion. This article has been put in the Record so I will not ask 
that it be printed again.
  There is always a possibility that this commission might lead to some 
better ideas. It might lead to a resolution, as a commission appointed 
by President Reagan did in 1984, dealing with some of the Central 
American problems. It made a number of recommendations; it was 
bipartisan, and many things that they recommended were later adopted by 
Congress.
  I do not know why a 45-day delay would bother the administration--
unless they want to invade between now and then. Forty-five days is not 
very long. We are going to be here, and Congress will be back, if there 
is a recess. Nothing in this amendment ties the President's hands--it 
does not even mention the President.
  In fact, we do not even need the resolution. If the majority leader 
would agree, I would certainly agree that we could name some of our 
colleagues today. Start today. We will not wait until this bill goes 
through conference and all that. Start today with the factfinding 
commission if time is a problem. We can do that on our own. We have 
that right. Some Members have gone to Haiti. Our colleague from 
Florida, Senator Graham, has been to Haiti. Others of my colleagues--I 
think one of my House colleagues is going to be in Haiti this week, 
Congressman Richardson from New Mexico. A number of them have gone 
there. Certainly, we have that right if we want to exercise it. I 
assume that people go there to get the facts. This would be a 
bipartisan effort, with no politics in it. It seems to me that the 
President would welcome it.
  I think it is probably time to vote on this simple idea to get the 
facts and an objective assessment. As I said, let us not shoot first 
and ask questions later. But I am afraid the gun is already loaded and 
pointed in that direction. We have a lot of warships down there, and 
they are not all there to rescue Americans, none of whom, as far as I 
know, are under any personal threat of any kind.
  Mr. President, this amendment is offered in the same spirit that I 
suggested it probably 2 or 3 months ago. It is not offered in any way 
to frustrate the President's plan or in any way to frustrate what other 
ideas other Members may have. They may be better than this one. It 
seems to me that if we are really concerned, and if we want the facts, 
what is wrong with having a factfinding commission for 45 days, who 
would report back to the U.S. Senate and the Congress? Then we might be 
able to find some way to do what most people want, which is to try to 
restore democracy to Haiti--though it was a pretty fragile democracy 
even when they had it.
  For all the reasons stated today and yesterday, I hope that this 
amendment will be accepted. And if not accepted, I hope it will be 
adopted with an overwhelming vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is clear what the purpose of this 
resolution to establish a joint congressional committee to study the 
issue in Haiti is, and the purpose is to restrict the President's range 
of options for an indefinite period of time, especially his option to 
use force.
  The Senator from Kansas, the distinguished minority leader, has 
stated that he did not consult with General Cedras before drafting this 
proposal. However, it is not without significance that General Cedras, 
upon becoming aware of this proposal, has adopted it.
  It is clear that this degree of gridlock in the United States foreign 
policy as it relates to Haiti would serve the primary purpose of 
emboldening the thugs who have stolen the sovereignty of the people of 
Haiti.
  Mr. President, I want to discuss some of the consequences should this 
Senate, in a fit of ill wisdom, adopt this proposal. But before I do 
that, I would like to turn to the proposal itself and just a few areas 
in which it is factually erroneous.
  The premise of this amendment is that Congress has been 
insufficiently consulted on Haiti, that there is some mystery, some 
attempt to disguise and keep from Congress the facts of what is 
occurring in Haiti.
  Mr. President, up until just a few days ago when commercial aviation 
service was cut off to Haiti--and even today, as the Senator indicated, 
the delegation will go to Haiti through the Dominican Republic this 
weekend--Haiti was a country in which Americans could visit, travel, 
talk to people, and gather information and form their own opinions. 
This is not a country which is thousands of miles away and, until 
recently, difficult to gain access to.
  This is also a country on which this administration, since January of 
last year, has had almost 30 briefings or presentations before 
appropriate congressional committees on Haiti.
  So people who wanted to get information about Haiti had the 
opportunity to do so. We do not have to defer to this Commission and 
place our policy in limbo for 45 days after the enactment of this bill, 
which could be well into September or October, in order to learn about 
what is happening in Haiti.
  So the basic premise, a premise of ignorance--and even more than 
ignorance, a premise that there has been some conscious effort to deny 
to the American people and to its representatives in Congress 
information as to what is occurring in Haiti--is fundamentally 
erroneous.
  Second, reading the proposition itself, on page 2, lines 1 through 4, 
it states under the category of ``Congressional Findings'':

       Haiti's elected President who is in exile and the de facto 
     ruling junta in Haiti have reached an impasse in their 
     negotiations for the reinstitution of civilian government.

  That is blatantly false. First, there was a good-faith effort to 
negotiate a restoration of democracy in Haiti, an effort which was 
frustrated in October of last year by the military regime which reneged 
on its commitments. The most dramatic example of that occurred in Port 
au Prince Harbor when the United States and the Canadians, pursuant to 
a provision in the Governors Island accords, the agreement which 
structured the return of democracy in Haiti, under that agreement, the 
United States and Canada had committed troops to come to Haiti not as 
warriors, but as workers and educators, to work as Seabees and Corps of 
Engineers personnel to help in the rebuilding of the country, and at 
the same time to educate elements of the Haitian military as to how 
they could perform those functions for the benefit of the people of 
Haiti.
  The Haitian military regime had committed to the international 
community that ship would be allowed to dock and that those men and 
women would be protected while they were carrying out their 
international responsibilities.
  What in fact occurred, as we all know, is first the Haitian 
Government arranged for a ship to be tied up at the only dock in the 
harbor of Port au Prince, which was large enough to accommodate the 
Harlan County, our ship, which contained those United States and 
Canadian troops; and, second, then brought to the dock a group of 
hoodlums who demonstrated against the United States and Canadian troops 
being disembarked. As a result of that gross breach of their 
commitment, the military of Haiti caused the United States and the 
Canadian troops to withdraw.
  It was not an ``impasse in negotiations'' which caused the process 
leading toward the restoration of democracy to break down. It was an 
arrogant, purposeful abrogation of obligations by the Haitian military 
which caused the negotiations to break down.
  In paragraph 3, it states:

       The extensive economic sanctions imposed by the United 
     Nations and United States against the de facto rules are 
     causing grave harm to innocent Haitians.

  That is erroneous, Mr. President. The sanctions are not a means of 
inflicting pain on the mass of the citizens of Haiti. The sanctions are 
a means of attempting to bring pressure towards the end of a voluntary 
transfer of power from those who seized it illegally at the point of a 
gun, ousted a democratically elected President, and have taken over the 
sovereignty of the state.
  What is causing the grave harm to Haitians is 30 years of despotic 
rule, and what is causing it today is that that long, dark period of 
the history of Haiti has reached a new low as to the level of human 
rights abuses, the level of violence directed against the people, a 
record of almost 100 political murders per month since the 1st of 
February, and a government which has driven the economy of the poorest 
country in the Western Hemisphere even further into disarray, resulting 
in more than 50 percent of the people of Haiti being unemployed.
  Those are the factors that have caused grave harm to innocent 
Haitians. Sanctions were intended to be a means of giving relief to the 
masses of the Haitian citizens by causing this illegitimate government 
to give way to the democratically elected President.
  In paragraph 5, Mr. President, it is stated:

       An armed invasion of Haiti by forces of the United States, 
     the United Nations, and the Organization of American States 
     would endanger the lives of troops sent to Haiti, as well as 
     thousands of Haitians, especially civilians.

  I agree with the thrust of that paragraph. But what it fails to say 
is what of the dangers to democracy in this hemisphere and to the 
citizens of Haiti by a continuation of our current policies or by the 
policy which so many on the other side of the aisle are advocating, 
which is essentially a policy of surrender? Let us recognize the 
illegitimate regime. Let us stop a policy which commenced with 
President George Bush, and that is to commit our Nation and the 
international community to a restoration of President Aristide. Let us 
forget that commitment. Let us lift the embargo. And let us let this 
reign of terror continue unabated.
  Those, Mr. President, are the factual inaccuracies contained within 
this resolution.
  Mr. President, a great American theologian, Harvey Cox, once observed 
that not to decide is to decide. There are consequences from 
indecision.
  I consider this resolution to be a statement of indecision. We are 
traumatized by all of the unpleasant choices that are before us. We are 
traumatized by what we see daily of the events from Haiti. We are 
traumatized by the thousands of people who are fleeing Haiti.
  Thus, our answer is let us not decide. Let us set up an ambiguous 
commission with an indeterminant reporting date, with a very vague 
charter. And let us let that substitute for making tough choices.
  But there are going to be tough choices, even if we were to adopt 
this resolution, Mr. President.
  What are some of the consequences of adopting this resolution? One of 
the consequences is that any prospect of achieving the result of a 
voluntary transfer of power by the current military regime to 
democratically elected President Aristide will be smashed. The only 
hope for a voluntary transfer of power, as bleak as I believe that hope 
to be, is if the United States and the international community present 
a clear, sustained, consolidated position demanding that there be such 
a transfer back to the legitimate government in Haiti.
  Every time we send a signal that there is fracture and division and 
discord in this country, we make it even less likely that there will be 
a diplomatic resolution of this issue. We make it more likely that we 
will be faced with either abject surrender or the use of military 
force.
  The second likely consequence of the adoption of this resolution, Mr. 
President, is to unleash a reign of terror in that country that even 
pales that which is occurring today.
  We have seen this week that the illegitimate regime told to the 100 
United Nations and Organization of American States observers: ``Out. 48 
hours. Pack your bags and leave.''
  I personally think that the international community made a very 
serious error in accepting that order to leave. The policy of the 
international community had been not to recognize orders of this 
illegitimate regime. The policy of the international community had been 
to provide a presence inside Haiti to give some degree of protection to 
the people of Haiti. At least these acts of violence would have a 
capacity to be reported from a credible source and the world community 
informed as to what is happening in Haiti. As a result of the 
international community's acceptance of this demand to leave, we have 
lost that capability.
  Now, if we were to pass this resolution and send a signal that there 
is division within this country and that we are going to be 
incapacitated to act for an indeterminate period, I believe that we 
would have blood on our hands, as we would be a coconspirator in a plot 
to butcher the people of Haiti.
  Third, Mr. President, I believe a consequence of this action would be 
to undercut our leadership in the international community. We have had 
many debates on this floor in recent months on the issue of Bosnia. One 
of the recurring themes in those debates has been that Bosnia should be 
the special responsibility for leadership of the European community. 
Bosnia is a European state. Europeans are going to be particularly 
affected by the consequences of what occurs in Bosnia. Europeans have 
been the ones who have been willing to step forward and place some of 
their troops on the ground in Bosnia.
  I believe that that is an appropriate assignment, a primary, 
regional, continental responsibility.
  In that same light, Mr. President, I believe that the United States 
has a special role in the Western Hemisphere. Throughout our history, 
we have taken an interest and a leadership position in terms of shaping 
policies for the Western Hemisphere. Many of those past actions are now 
legitimately subject to criticism. Maybe they were overreaching and 
overbearing and created the concept of the ugly American in Latin 
America.
  But today, Mr. President, we hope that we are embarked on a new 
course and that the fundamental premise of our policy in the Western 
Hemisphere is to support the development of functioning democratic 
governments which respect the rights of their people and provide a 
basis in which there is some hope for a prosperous future for their and 
future generations of our fellow occupants of this New World.
  If we were to adopt this resolution, Mr. President, in the face of 
our commitment to the United Nations and the Organization of American 
States, I think that we would be essentially abdicating, certainly 
raising serious questions about, the credibility of U.S. leadership and 
influence in this region of the world.
  Mr. President, I believe there are serious adverse consequences to 
adopting this resolution. This is not a free vote.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, let me raise what I consider to be the 
most serious implication of this debate and this issue which is before 
us, and that is as another example of the shattering of the concept of 
bipartisanship in foreign policy.
  We have been joined by my good friend from Arizona. I know we 
disagree on this issue, but I respect Senator McCain, and we have spent 
more time together than maybe he would have preferred. But I know that 
he is deeply committed to the belief that, when the United States 
speaks to the world, it should speak with a single voice.
  Yes, we are going to have debates like this in arriving at what that 
voice will be, but, once the issue is joined, that we are all 
Americans.
  I believe that there is the basis of this position in some previous 
statements that have been made by Senator Dole. You will recall in the 
fall of 1989, there was an attempt to overthrow then General Noriega 
from his despotic position in Panama. The effort at that overthrow 
failed and there was considerable criticism directed at President Bush 
for the failure of the United States to support those who were involved 
in the coup.
  According to an article that appeared in the Congressional Quarterly 
in December of 1989:

       Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole spoke for many 
     Republicans--

  And I am now quoting from the article--

       Who lamented the administration's hesitancy to get directly 
     involved in the anti-Noriega insurgency, but who blamed a 
     decade and a half of congressional effort to restrict the use 
     of military or paramilitary force overseas.

  And now quoting Senator Dole:

       A good part of what went wrong * * * did not happen last 
     weekend. It started happening many years ago when Congress 
     first decided to start telling the President how he ought to 
     manage a crisis.

  I think there is some wisdom in that statement; that we have to put 
aside whether we are Republicans or Democrats and recognize that we are 
Americans with a responsibility for this Nation's position of 
leadership and the special role that the United States has played 
throughout its over 200-year history as the prime example of a 
Government of, by, and for the people.
  I think we ought to have a debate about American national interests. 
Is there a sufficient United States national interest in Haiti for us 
to be involved at all? Should we have our role in the economic 
sanctions and as a political isolation, which are our current policies? 
Should we be prepared to go beyond those current policies? What is our 
interest in Haiti?
  I would like to briefly suggest, Mr. President--and I hope this would 
become the basis of further debate as we form our opinions on Haiti and 
as we use this as a basis of forming opinions as to what our interests 
are in this post-cold-war era--that the United States has a number of 
critical interests at stake in Haiti. Let me suggest a few of those 
interests.
  Just a few years ago, you could have counted on the fingers of your 
hand, with several fingers left over, the number of democracies in the 
Western Hemisphere. This was a very unstable and violent place.
  We can all recall the pictures from countries like Chile and 
Argentina, where depravation of basic human rights and flagrant 
homicides were a regular part of government action to intimidate its 
people.
  Today, Mr. President, every country in the Western Hemisphere is 
democratic except for Cuba and Haiti. I believe that it is very much in 
the interest of the United States of America to maintain this movement 
towards democratic governments in the Western Hemisphere. It is those 
democratic governments with which we can have peaceful, productive, 
relationships, political, cultural, and economic. It is that stability 
within this region which will limit the instances in which we will have 
to have a debate such as we are engaged in today.
  The reality is that because so many democracies in the Western 
Hemisphere are both new and fragile, that they are also vulnerable. All 
over this hemisphere there are the sons and the grandsons of former 
military dictators who are waiting in the barracks, waiting for a 
signal that it is permissible to institute an old-style military coup. 
And their eyes have turned to Haiti as an example of whether the 
international community is in fact prepared to be faithful to its 
commitments to support democratic governments.
  I suggest if we fail this test that what we have already seen in 
countries such as Venezuela, which has had two military coup attempts 
since the deposing of President Aristide from Haiti, in Guatemala, 
which almost had another, that we would see those as just the beginning 
of a chain reaction of assaults against fragile democracies within this 
hemisphere.
  You talk about the danger that is involved in dealing with this 
current crisis in Haiti, and the danger that may befall some civilians 
within Haiti. I suggest the greater danger is to allow the signal that 
it is acceptable in 1994 to continue to have a military regime which 
acquired power not through the legitimacy of the ballot box but through 
the force of the machinegun.
  Second, we do have an interest in human rights. We just passed the 
Fourth of July where many of us participated in patriotic observances. 
The Declaration of Independence was widely read around the smallest 
villages to the biggest cities of our country. That statement of basic 
beliefs in the rights of mankind was not written by Thomas Jefferson to 
only refer to the relatively small number of colonialists who lived 
along the Atlantic seaboard. It is a statement of universal principles. 
It is a statement which has guided U.S. foreign policy throughout our 
Nation's history. In my opinion it has guided our foreign policy when 
we were acting to our greatest national benefit.
  We have within our own neighborhood--not thousands of miles away in 
Somalia but in our neighborhood--an example of horrendous human rights 
abuses. Every principle that Thomas Jefferson asked this Nation to 
stand for is being violated on a daily basis in Haiti. I believe that 
ought to be of concern to us.
  I believe that a sense of compassion is an appropriate quality in a 
great Nation's foreign policy. When bad things happen in Haiti we are 
not going to be immune from the consequences of those evil deeds. We 
see it most dramatically in the thousands of Haitians who are leaving 
that country. Some 50,000 have left the country since the coup in 
September of 1991. The numbers have accelerated in recent weeks as the 
conditions inside the country have collapsed.
  We are going to pay a heavy price for those refugees. We are going to 
pay a heavy price, whether we decide to provide safe havens or admit 
them into the United States.
  Haiti has also become a significant transshipment point for drugs. 
Drugs that used to flow through other places in the Caribbean are now 
coming through Haiti into the United States, showing up on the streets 
of Milwaukee as well as Miami.
  We are paying a price for what has happened in Haiti. We are not 
immune to the adverse consequences.
  I believe we do have interests in this country which warrant the firm 
resolve that our President is now proclaiming. I believe we have 
interests that warrant us not adopting a resolution that will clearly 
be seen as a signal of a lack of that resolve; of a withdrawal of any 
hand of hope and friendship to the mass of people of Haiti.
  I hope we will use this debate as a serious effort to begin to 
restore the principle of bipartisanship in foreign policy. There are 
serious issues here, issues that affect the future of our Nation and 
the world; issues which affect the lives of individuals who have been 
caught in the hell that today is Haiti.
  I hope the Senate, in its wisdom, will defeat this resolution. I hope 
by maintaining a constancy of position, that we might be able to 
achieve our goal of restoration of democracy in Haiti without the 
resort to force. I hope, should we find that desire is not possible of 
achievement, that we would abstain from the temptation to accept 
surrender and abdication to this group of international criminals who 
have taken over the sovereignty of Haiti; that we in the international 
community would be prepared to stand for the values of human dignity 
and respect and the democratic process as the surest means of 
protecting those human values.
  That is what I believe is at stake in this issue. We would take a 
serious step away from those important commitments by adopting this 
resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Florida and I attended a briefing 
yesterday given by the Secretaries of State and Defense, our 
distinguished Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, and 
Tony Lake, the National Security Adviser; a briefing that took place 
for almost 2 hours.
  The distinguished Senator from Arizona was present. I know the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Vermont, 
who are here on the floor today, were also present.
  But as I left, having listened very carefully to a free and open 
dialog between some 20-odd Senators and these key administration 
officials, I asked myself, was there a clear expression of the 
justification for the United States to invade Haiti?
  Candidly, Senator, I did not find it in that briefing.
  The matter is classified so we cannot go into specifics. But I did 
not leave with a clear understanding. I would like to ask the Senator 
if he left with a clear understanding of the justifications that the 
administration would allege for any decision to invade Haiti?
  There was a discussion about preserving democracy in this hemisphere. 
If we look at the U.N. Charter, there is no clear mandate for the 
nations of the world, and particularly the nations that are part of the 
Security Council, to send forth their forces in support of the cause of 
democracy. I could show where there are 60-odd places on the globe 
today where conflict is taking place, human rights being violated, 
casualties, human suffering of enormous proportion--60 today, compared 
with a mere 30 such places 6 years ago--demonstrating how all over the 
globe the world is becoming a more unstable place.
  But I ask the Senator, what was the clear justification that the 
Senator from Florida may have received that the Senator from Virginia 
did not receive, as to the basis for the United States intervening 
militarily in that nation?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Senator, I must not have been even as vaguely articulate 
as I tried to be in my earlier statement. Because in part I was 
attempting to restate what the President has said publicly, and what we 
have heard in other forums as to the basis of the United States 
interest. This is not an issue which is a question that you can convert 
to numerical certitude.
  It is an issue that finally comes to one of values and judgment. Is 
it in the United States vital interest that the principle of democracy 
in the Western Hemisphere be preserved? You can debate that issue.
  I might point out to my friend from Virginia that on June 5, 1991, 
during the administration of President George Bush, the United States 
supported and voted for a resolution called the Santiago accord, which 
was adopted by the Organization of American States which stated in its 
preamble that the charter of the Organization of American States 
establishes that representative democracy is an indispensable condition 
for the stability, peace, and development of the region. And under the 
provisions of the charter, one of the basic purposes of the OAS is to 
promote and consolidate representative democracy.
  Mr. President, I believe that the United States, in many forums, has 
taken a position that democracy in this hemisphere is a matter of vital 
national interest. I also state that the eloquent words of your fellow 
Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, I believe, established that one of the 
principles--the way in which the United States acts in a world, a 
principle we have acted upon on many occasions--is to protect those 
inalienable rights which he declared to be universal.
  I also believe that protecting the United States from the adverse 
consequences of the deterioration in Haiti, whether it be drugs or 
refugees, is in the interest of the people of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. WARNER. If you wish to quote Thomas Jefferson----
  Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Mr. President. I ask for the regular 
order.
  Mr. WARNER. If I can have 1 minute, I will sit down, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator has not yielded the floor. Otherwise, I ask 
for the regular order. Some of us have been waiting to talk for some 
period of time.
  Mr. WARNER. I apologize to my colleague. If the Senator will yield 
for one question. He quotes Thomas Jefferson. I would like to quote 
Senator Nunn, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, appearing on 
national network this morning. I quote him:

       When I think about whether to invade Haiti, I think we have 
     to carefully think about what our mission is going to be. If 
     the mission is to alleviate the refugee problem, then I think 
     we first ought to try adjusting the sanction policy. If the 
     mission is to protect American lives right now, they're not 
     under threat.

  And the Senator and I know from the intelligence briefing this is a 
correct fact.

       If they come under threat, we have to be prepared to move 
     rapidly. But if the mission is to restore democracy, that's a 
     different mission. It's not primarily a military mission. 
     It's a nation-building mission, and we need to think through 
     that one very carefully.

  And, I say to the Senator from Florida, that is the purpose of the 
commission recommended by the distinguished Senator from Kansas ,[Mr. 
Dole].
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Could I answer the question, if there was a question? It 
is not my position that the Haitian issue is resolved when the 
military, illegitimate regime is deposed and the democratically elected 
President restored. That is a necessary prerequisite for what must 
follow, not the last chapter. Some of those things that need to follow 
after that were laid out in the Governors Island accord. We need to 
have an international presence in Haiti in order to create a passive 
environment in which democracy and its institutions can begin to 
function again.
  I might say that it is going to make it more difficult to create that 
international peacekeeping course if we adopt a resolution such as 
this.
  Second, it is going to be necessary to have a very effective 
political reform, starting with the separation of the police from the 
military, and economic reform, starting with creating the stimulus for 
the private sector to commence activities again in Haiti, if the 
benefits of democracy are going to be realized.
  So I agree that the military use, which is a use that nobody wants to 
have, is not an attractive option. It just happens to be, in my 
judgment, the only option we are going to have other than surrender, 
and it is not a substitute for those steps economically and politically 
that will have to follow. It is a necessary prerequisite to those 
steps.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Especially while the Senator from Virginia is also on the 
floor. The Senator from Virginia asked a question whether the meeting 
yesterday was justification for an invasion.
  Was it not clearly stated at that meeting, in answer to a specific 
question that was clearly stated by the Secretary of State on behalf of 
the administration, that they oppose the amendment now pending before 
us?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the question is directed to me----
  Mr. LEAHY. It is directed to Senator Graham because he had the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I was not present when that question was asked, but I 
know from subsequent inquiry that, in fact, the administration opposes 
this proposal for basically the reasons which I attempted to 
articulate.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the Senator from Florida had an opportunity to 
hear part of the discussion this morning when I laid out that by the 
normal time it would take to get through this bill, conference and so 
on, that this study would actually come back, in all likelihood, after 
we have recessed for the November elections, and if that is the case, 
would the Senator agree with me that we really would not even be 
debating this issue probably until some time in February or March of 
next year?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I agree with the Senator, and I will state again what our 
distinguished colleague, the minority leader, stated in reference to 
the Panama crisis, that a contributing cause to that crisis was ``when 
Congress first decided to start telling the President how he ought to 
manage a crisis.''
  I believe the best chance of our getting through this crisis without 
having to use force is if we speak with a single, firm voice to the 
military leadership in Haiti and they, in fact, believe that we are 
serious about the necessity of their removal.
  Mr. LEAHY. And moving to my final question--I ask this as manager of 
the bill--while every Senator will make up his or her mind based on 
what he or she feels, and not what anybody else tells them to do, is it 
not a fact that the military ruler of Haiti, General Cedras, has stated 
his support of this amendment while the President of the United States 
has stated his opposition to it?
  Mr. GRAHAM. On national television last night on NBC, General Cedras 
endorsed the principle of this resolution, which comes as no surprise. 
It is very consistent with his own self-interest.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, to pick up on that, President Aristide has 
come out in opposition to any U.S. invasion. So if we are bound by the 
views of foreign leaders, then I suggest that we then would not invade 
Haiti since the elected President Aristide has come out against it.
  Before the Senator from Florida leaves the floor, I would like to, 
again, voice my respect for his knowledge, his articulate and 
impassioned arguments for his side. I have found it a very educational 
experience debating him on many occasions in the past few weeks. I do 
believe that we share the same goal, and that is the restoration of 
freedom and democracy, not only in Haiti but throughout our hemisphere. 
I want to repeat my respect for his ample and articulate expression of 
his point of view.
  But I would also like to pick up with a little different view of 
something that the Senator from Florida was just discussing, and that 
is bipartisanship. I regret to tell the Senator from Florida and my 
colleagues that one of the reasons why I am in strong support of the 
Dole amendment appointing the commission is because there has been 
virtually no bipartisanship in addressing this issue.
  I just asked the Republican leader if he has been consulted in any 
way, asked his views of the Haiti situation, asked his recommendations 
as to what should be done in Haiti, and his answer was no.
  Speaking for myself, which probably is not too important, nor have I, 
nor has any Republican Senator, that I know of, been consulted in any 
way.
  I point out to my colleague from Florida, and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, that did not characterize the previous 
administration's response to crises.
  Now, we all have a problem with the fact that the War Powers Act, 
which is a law that this body passed and overcame the veto of the 
President of the United States, has been routinely disregarded. I think 
it will be disregarded again in the case of an invasion of Haiti. But 
on this issue, and Bosnia and Korea, there has been no bipartisan 
consultation, and it is time that the White House woke up and started, 
if not consulting with the Senator from Arizona, which I do not expect, 
certainly they could consult with the Senator from Kentucky, the 
Senator from Kansas, and other leadership of the Republican Party. I 
suggest they do that soon, and if they had done that, they might not be 
facing what in all candor, Mr. President, is a very difficult vote not 
for those of us on this side of the aisle, but for those on the other 
side of the aisle.
  So I urge my colleagues to tell their leadership in the executive 
branch, let us sit down together and discuss these issues.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Was not the Republican leader invited to the consultation 
that the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], and others, 
were discussing that was held yesterday?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be more than pleased to answer that question 
because I was there, I tell my friend from Vermont. Frankly----
  Mr. LEAHY. We sat beside each other.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am astounded he would ask. There was no consultation. 
It was a briefing, in fact. As the Senator from Vermont knows and I do, 
too, it was a briefing which could easily be seen on any of the major 
networks or read in any newspaper or magazine in America. I learned 
zero, zero, in additional information that was conveyed there. And 
there was no request by any of the individuals there for any advice or 
input or counsel from the Members who were in attendance. I think my 
friend from Virginia will agree with that.
  So, yes, questions were asked. Questions were asked. No advice or 
counsel was requested nor, frankly, did the environment lend itself to 
that.
  I say to my friend from Vermont, he knows as well as I do, the way to 
consult with people on this issue is to call them down to the White 
House, sit around a table or, as the Senator from Vermont told me he 
did in a previous administration, go up to private quarters, sit there, 
and have a free exchange of ideas and views. That is the way that we 
can consult in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator knows, first off, that I feel this is an issue 
that should have significant consultation, to be sure, as I have said 
both on the floor and privately. And I wish the administration would 
make a stronger effort at consultation with Members of both sides.
  But does the Senator also not agree with a suggestion made by me in 
response to a speech by the Senator from Pennsylvania this morning that 
maybe a better way to do this would be to have, not as an amendment to 
this appropriations bill, a freestanding resolution under a specific 
period of time, a couple days or whatever it would take, where we 
debate whether the Congress would grant the President authority to 
invade or not to invade, somewhat similar to what we did prior to the 
Persian Gulf war?
  Would the Senator agree with me that a better procedure--I am not 
asking him to back off from his support of this resolution--but a 
better procedure would be that both bodies might debate something 
similar to what we did in the Persian Gulf war and debate whether we in 
the Congress, with our duties and responsibilities of warmaking, debate 
whether yea or nay, the President can do it if within his judgment as 
Commander in Chief he thinks he should or, no matter what his judgment 
is, the Congress would not allow him to do it?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Vermont, 
first of all, let me say that in my dealings with the Senator from 
Vermont, he has always been bipartisan on these issues. We may have 
disagreed on numerous occasions, but there has been consultation and 
discussion. I was speaking, obviously, of the executive branch.
  But the problem with the proposal of the Senator from Vermont is that 
that would have to be triggered by a request from the White House for 
authorization. Otherwise, I think we would be acting in an 
unconstitutional manner.
  I voted against the amendment that was offered by my colleague from 
New Hampshire that prevented the President of the United States from 
going into Haiti militarily not because I want the President to go in 
militarily--and there are other Members in the Chamber in agreement 
with me--but because it violated constitutional principle.
  So if we somehow got to debate here--let me just finish my answer to 
my friend from Vermont. If we debated whether we should authorize the 
President to invade Haiti or not without the executive branch 
requesting that, then I think we would be turning the process on its 
head.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry, I say to my friend from Arizona; I did not 
state my question as well as I should. I am presupposing such a request 
from the administration.
  Mr. McCAIN. From the White House.
  Mr. LEAHY. In other words, I am saying--and I realize this is not the 
situation before us--would not the best situation be that we do it 
similar to the Persian Gulf: There be a request; we have a debate in 
both bodies within a compressed period of time, something realistic, a 
couple days or so, and then vote either for it or against it?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Vermont that would be an ideal 
situation. My understanding is that the administration says it is not 
contemplating an invasion at this time, so therefore it would put the 
administration, obviously, in a very awkward situation.
  I agree with the Senator from Vermont; the best of all worlds would 
be if the executive branch came--after I answer the Senator from 
Vermont, I would like to respond to the Senator from Connecticut--if 
the executive branch came and said we want authorization to use 
whatever force is necessary in Haiti to protect American lives, restore 
democracy, stop the flow of refugees. I think that would be the best of 
all worlds, I say to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky. Then I will yield 
to my friend from Connecticut. He was waiting first.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  The Senator from Vermont expresses a view that I mentioned to him 
privately a few moments ago. If we had been in fact consulted, as the 
Senator from Arizona asserts--and he is correct; we have not been 
consulted--the advice I would have given, I gather from listening to 
him, the chairman of the subcommittee would have given, and I am rather 
confident the advice the Senator from Arizona would have given is come 
up here and ask us for the authority. Come up here and ask us for the 
authority.
  My guess is that the authority would be granted. I might even vote 
for it. And then the administration would have that option, just as 
President Bush had that option, which they might or might not choose to 
use. It would be there. But that way we would have a sense of 
leadership from the administration, which I gather is exactly what the 
Senator from Arizona is saying.
  I am going to vote for the Dole amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment. But had I been consulted, I would have said to the 
President: Send up a resolution; let us have a good Persian Gulf-type 
debate; make your best case that you would like to have the military 
option; and my guess is Congress will give it to you.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will briefly respond to the Senator from Kentucky and, 
before yielding to the Senator from Connecticut, make two quick points. 
There is a lesson from this debate that I hope the executive branch 
receives. That is, let us sit down and consult together. Some may not 
believe it, but most of us are not comfortable in leveling criticism at 
the administration on the conduct of foreign policy because we still 
believe in the old adage of partisanship being left at the water's 
edge. But we also have the overriding national interest which causes us 
to speak up.
  My second point is, especially given the presence on the floor of the 
Senator from Connecticut, as well as the Senator from Rhode Island, 
that we need to sit down in a bipartisan group and work out this issue 
of the War Powers Act. We have violated the War Powers Act. We are 
telling the American people we pass laws that we are supposed to abide 
by and we do not; and we pass laws that they are supposed to abide by 
and when they do not, they are punished.
  And so I would urge, especially with a lot of the collective 
knowledge we have in this body, that we try again to modify the War 
Powers Act so that it is a workable document rather than a law which is 
passed and fundamentally ignored, which I think erodes people's 
confidence in Congress.
  I would like to yield, without losing the floor, to my friend from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Arizona. I did not want to 
disrupt his thought. I knew he wanted to point out the issue of 
consultation. And again, I do not know if anyone objects here, but I 
think for purposes of the Record, it is noteworthy to point out since 
January 1993, on the subject of Haiti, we have had 27 hearings and 
briefings in the Congress.
  I held two of them. One was an all-day hearing on Haiti just a few 
weeks ago; in fact, twice in just the last several months.
  I point out to my colleagues again--and I know people are busy--other 
than the ranking minority member, Senator Coverdell of Georgia, no one 
showed up; nor did I have any requests other than from the Senator from 
Florida to testify before the hearing. The hearing is not a 
consultation per se. But clearly the administration was there 
testifying at great length about it. That is an opportunity granted, a 
public forum, but, nonetheless, an opportunity to ask questions, to 
raise issues about various policies.
  Twenty-seven hearings and briefings are not insignificant. I point 
out again, knowing there are busy schedules, when you have an all-day 
hearing inviting people from all different points of view to come and 
you get one colleague to show up, it certainly does not bode well when 
you get the issue about consultation and concern about the matter. So I 
really make that point because it is, I think, worthwhile to note.
  I apologize to my colleague.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut that 
he makes a very valid point. This issue has been ventilated through 
congressional hearings and by the Senator from Connecticut, who has a 
very important position on the Foreign Relations Committee. It has been 
certainly well ventilated in the media.
  But hearings and briefings, I know that my friend from Connecticut 
knows, are different from bipartisan consultation where people sit down 
and solicit the views of one another and try to have a consensus. We 
never achieve consensus in a hearing. We achieve consensus by sitting 
down with the same goal in mind that opponents as well as proponents of 
this amendment share and trying to work out something that we can go 
and stand in front of the American people with and say we agree on this 
course of action. We have been able to do it in the past. I hope we can 
do it in the future.
  Mr. President, by the way, the Senator from Connecticut is as well 
versed on this hemisphere's issues as any Member of this body. I think 
he has played an important and vital role in informing the American 
people through his chairmanship of the subcommittee with jurisdiction 
on this issue.
  Mr. President, I want to mention several reasons why I believe it is 
important to pass the Dole amendment.
  Fundamentally, the overriding reason is that I believe we are 
lurching towards an invasion of Haiti. We are lurching towards that 
debacle without the full consultation and approval of the American 
people, without proper consultation with Congress and, in my view, 
without proper examination of what is at stake and what the 
consequences of an invasion of Haiti are.
  Mr. President, I do not say those words lightly. I think that the 
Senator from Florida--and I know the Senator from Connecticut and 
others--can make a compelling argument of the terrible tragedies that 
are unfolding on a daily basis, hourly basis in Haiti; the human rights 
abuses, the refugee problem, et cetera.
  But several questions must be asked, and among them are:
  Have we a consistent policy towards Haiti?
  Is it really a solution to continue to support Aristide, who, 
although democratically elected, has certainly conducted himself in 
office in a way which would give one grave and serious concerns about 
his return to power?
  What should our policy be?
  And, finally, as the Senator from Florida said, is it in the United 
States' vital national security interests?
  I would like to address those briefly.
  As far as the consistency in policy is concerned, we have reversed 
several policies regarding the situation in Haiti. They have changed 
very dramatically. They have served, in my view, to confuse our allies 
and to encourage our adversaries. As we all know, the first policy was 
that of candidate Clinton who said: ``I am appalled by the decision of 
the Bush administration to pick up fleeing Haitians on the high seas 
and forcibly return them to Haiti.''
  The second policy was after President Clinton became President and he 
basically, after becoming aware of the hundreds of boats that were 
being built all over Haiti to bring refugees from Haiti to Florida on 
Inauguration Day, basically announced a policy identical to the Bush 
policy.
  The third policy, and frankly the most disturbing one to me, Mr. 
President, is policy by hunger strike. After a hunger strike by an 
individual and pressures from the Congressional Black Caucus, the new 
policy proposed to process refugees on ships off the coast and in third 
countries. The new policy took effect on June 16, 1994, and then began 
a new flood of refugees, exactly what we sought to avoid.
  Between June 16, when the policy changed, and July 7, roughly 14,000 
Haitians were picked up at sea. That is a massive number, and, of 
course, one that would not be sustainable. We just could not at that 
level of refugees continue to find sufficient safe havens in order to 
accommodate them.
  The fourth policy came this last Tuesday. This was a policy once 
again designed to stem the flow of refugees. And the policy was that 
refugees would be taken to out-of-country processing centers. If they 
were found to have a legitimate claim of persecution, they would be 
allowed to stay in the refugee camp. If not, they would be returned to 
Haiti.
  This was backed up by statements from the administration such as the 
special envoy on this issue, Mr. William Gray, who said: ``Those who 
take to the boats will not have resettlement possibilities in the 
United States.''
  One day later, apparently under pressure from the Congressional Black 
Caucus and others, a tougher policy designed to stem the flow was 
overturned for what could only be viewed as political reasons. Refugees 
would not have to prove a fear of persecution to stay in the third 
country refugee camps.
  Mr. President, hopefully, a bipartisan commission could come up with 
a consistent policy as regards Haiti. You cannot conduct foreign policy 
lurching from one press conference to another. You cannot conduct 
foreign policy by making off-the-cuff remarks on one day intimating 
that military action in Haiti is imminent and on the next day saying it 
is not an option that is seriously considered. You cannot do it, Mr. 
President, without ending in the kind of debacle that we have today. 
These policy flip-flops are painting us in a corner for which the only 
exit is an invasion of Haiti.
  Mr. President, I want to talk just a minute about Mr. Aristide 
because this policy has been consistent in one respect, and that is its 
insistence on the return of Aristide to power.
  The State Department in a 1991 human rights report said that, under 
Aristide, ``The government proved to be unwilling or unable to restrain 
popular justice through mob violence.''
  In January 1991, according to Msgr. William Murphy, of the Catholic 
Church:
  A group of thugs, supporters of newly-elected President Aristide, 
went on a rampage. They destroyed the old Cathedral, gutted the 
archbishop's house, and then went on to the nunciature, home of the 
Pope's representative, where they completely destroyed the building, 
attacked the nuncio and his press secretary, broke both legs of the 
press secretary, and roughed up and stripped the nuncio, which was 
saved only by the intervention of a neighbor.
  Did President Aristide do or say anything to oppose this action, and 
is there any evidence that his supporters carried it out?
  In August 1991, the democratically elected Parliament of Haiti met to 
question President Aristide's Prime Minister Preval to consider voting 
no confidence in him.
  According to a report by Donald Shultz and Gabriel Marcella of the 
Strategic Institute of the U.S. Army War College:

       During these sessions, pro-Aristide demonstrators filled 
     the public galleries. Some openly threatened to lynch the 
     opposition. On August 6, the deputy was assaulted and beaten. 
     The following day the crowd stoned a home of another. On 
     August 13, a mob of some 2,000 people surrounded the 
     Parliament screaming threats of ``Pere Lebrun,'' which means 
     necklacing, if the legislators voted to censor the Prime 
     Minister. Two deputies were attacked. One of them was badly 
     hurt. A mob torched the headquarters of the Autonomous 
     Federation of Haitian Workers, and then went on to loot the 
     offices of the Confederation of the Democratic Unity, burning 
     barricades which were set up in various parts of the city. 
     Public transportation was halted. Businesses came to a 
     standstill. Parliament adjourned without issuing a vote on 
     Preval.

  The report goes on to say:

       The government eventually moved to halt the government 
     violence and restore order, but the message had been 
     understood.
  To oppose Aristide was to court mob retaliation. In the weeks that 
followed, political party members attempting to hold meetings were 
threatened with necklacing, effectively bringing party operations to a 
near halt. Mr. President, if this account is true, how does it square 
with the statement that restoring President Aristide is to restore 
democracy?
  On July 26, 1991, a Captain Neptune, commander of the antigang unit 
of the police, arrested 5 Haitian youths in a supermarket parking lot 
in Port-au-Prince. According to reports, Neptune summoned an assistant 
second lieutenant, Richard Salomon, deputy chief of the antigang unit, 
who was the duty officer that evening. Salomon arrested the youths and, 
with three of his men, took them to the antigang office at Port-au-
Prince headquarters, where they were severely beaten and shot at point-
blank range with several weapons. They were executed in a sugar 
plantation near police headquarters. Despite pressure from Cedras for 
an investigation, Aristide publicly praised Salomon on September 11 and 
blocked the investigation. This terrible abuse of human rights is 
mentioned in the State Department's 1991 human rights report.
  Is this report true? Did President Aristide publicly cover up the 
torture and murder of 5 Haitian youths? The same report claims that the 
Aristide government made no effort to investigate the death of an 
American citizen, Richard Andre Emmanuel, who was killed by mob 
violence in late February. Is this true? And has the Aristide 
government made any effort to identify the killers of this American 
citizen? Did President Aristide urge the use of necklacing in an 
address to students on Saturday, August 3, 1991? Did President 
Aristide, in an address to his followers on September 27, 1991, urge 
his followers, ``If you want to shoot, go ahead''?
  In this speech, did he urge his followers who were brandishing tires 
and machetes that they use necklacing as a weapon against their 
enemies? Did a pro-Aristide mob in Les Cayes necklace the Reverend 
Sylvio Claude, the head of Haiti's Christian Democratic Party, 2 days 
after this speech?
  As you know, the Reverend Claude had been a prisoner under Duvalier 
and was one of the country's foremost defenders of human rights.
  What evidence does the United States have in its possession that 
President Aristide ordered the September 1991 murder of Roger LaFontant 
in his prison cell? Are there transcripts of interviews of two of the 
participants in this murder, including the results of a lie detector 
test of one, which provide direct testimony that Aristide personally 
ordered this murder?
  These are not idle questions, Mr. President. The American people may 
risk American lives to restore President Aristide to office. I suggest 
that a bipartisan commission should and would investigate these 
allegations, which are of the most serious nature, and perhaps force a 
change of administration policy, which I strongly favor, and that we do 
not insist on the return of Aristide to power. Instead, we call for a 
free and fair election.
  I have a couple more quotes from the U.S. Department of State's 
Country Reports on Human Rights.

       ``President Aristide failed to condemn categorically all 
     reports of popular justice through mob violence.'' ``The 
     Haitian Government repeatedly attempted to interfere with the 
     judicial process or usurp it through mob justice.'' ``On 
     August 13, Parliament, as well as the officers of the number 
     of Aristide Government critics, were attacked by mobs, who 
     many observers believed were inspired by those close to the 
     administration.'' ``The most serious 1991 violation of 
     freedom of travel occurred shortly after Aristide took office 
     when hundreds of former officials of previous governments 
     were subjected to a constitutionally questionable ban on 
     foreign travel.'' ``After his election victory, President 
     Aristide and his supporters often excluded or intimidated 
     their political opponents, or those perceived as such.''

  I believe that a bipartisan commission would look very carefully into 
those charges.
  Mr. President, we need to ask ourselves two more questions: What is 
the effect of the present policy? The effect of the present policy in 
Haiti is to ratchet down conditions on poor, hungry, starving Haitians, 
who are faced basically with two choices--starving to death, or getting 
on boats and going to sea in hopes of finding someplace where they can 
find food and a place to live decently. It is these sanctions which 
inconvenience the Haitian leadership and prevent them from flying to 
Miami and shopping that are causing the death and starvation of 
innocent women and children in Haiti.
  Mr. President, it is hard to justify that in exchange for the return 
of Mr. Aristide to power. So let us remember what the effect of this 
policy is: One, the sanctions are causing the starvation and death of 
innocent Haitians. The rich people in Haiti are not starving. In fact, 
the ability of essential supplies to come in to feed many of these 
people has been dramatically impaired.
  The second effect of this policy is to drive us to a situation where 
one of several things happens. First, an American citizen is attacked 
somewhere in Haiti. Therefore, the United States, with its Marines, is 
ready to invade in order to ``protect the lives of American citizens.'' 
Second, that because conditions are so bad, and the refugee problem so 
large, that we must find it incumbent--since we have no other place to 
cut the continued flow of refugees --to go overthrow the government and 
put President Aristide back in power.
  Mr. President, the question must be asked not whether we can 
overthrow the Haitian Government. We can do that in 6 hours or less. 
The U.S. marines could overthrow that Government in a New York minute. 
But once we are in power, how does the United States then run that 
country? How does the United States of America restore democratic 
institutions where there have never been democratic institutions? How 
does the United States of America react when the first mob forms and 
begins throwing rocks at the U.S. Marines? How does the United States 
react the first time a bomb goes off in a cafe or a hotel where 
American troops are quartered? I think our previous experiences in 
Beirut and Somalia indicate what the answer to that is.
  Advocates of the administration policy will say: Oh, well, bring in a 
multinational group, and they will take over within a short period of 
time, and they will be able to run the country. That presupposes that 
there will be democratic institutions that can be run. That presupposes 
that all the animosity generated by an invasion by a foreign country 
will have dissipated. That presupposes that all of those Haitians that 
are presently in the Haitian military, who will simply have taken off 
their uniforms and melted into the local population, will no longer 
resist an American occupation. We have also learned, sadly, in Somalia 
and in other countries, that there is really only one military unit, 
one military organization that is capable of exercising the kind of 
discipline and military capability to keep things under control and 
even then not without casualties.
  So, Mr. President, if we invade Haiti, we should not only think of 
the initial effect, which I predict would be a rallying around the 
President on the part of the American people, it would be a long, 
drawn-out experience, not unlike that which we underwent between 1915 
and 1934. I have heard it said on this floor that it is not the same as 
it was between 1915 and 1934. Mr. President, it is not the same, but 
there is an enormous chilling number of similarities between Port-au-
Prince today and Port-au-Prince in 1915. There were no democratic 
institutions. There was violence in the streets. There was a condition 
of anarchy which made Woodrow Wilson feel as some in the administration 
feel today, that the way to take care of all of these problems was to 
have the United States invade. Frankly, I think that that would be a 
very serious mistake today, as it was then.

  Finally, Mr. President, and I know there are others who are waiting 
to speak, we have to ask ourselves again, is it in the United States' 
vital national security interests?
  I certainly understand the arguments of the Senator from Florida 
concerning refugees. I certainly understand the arguments other 
Senators are making here that we want to have democratic governments in 
countries in our hemisphere.
  With all due respect, I would say to my friend from Connecticut there 
was a very different view about restoration of democracy in Nicaragua 
and restoration and maintenance of democracy in El Salvador by those 
who are interested in having an invasion of Haiti in order to restore 
democracy there.
  There were those of us, and I was heavily involved in this debate for 
many years, who thought that support with arms and ammunition and 
supplies for the freedom fighters in Nicaragua was an appropriate 
method as opposed to invasion.
  I never supported the United States invasion of Nicaragua. There were 
those of us who felt that aiding El Salvador, in assisting them against 
an insurgency which was at least to some degree orchestrated and 
assisted from Cuba, did not require a United States invasion.
  Now we find ourselves in a curious situation where there is a country 
that does not have democratic institutions, where there are human 
rights abuses, and people are calling for an invasion. It is a curious 
reversal of priorities in my view, Mr. President.
  So are the United States' vital national interests at stake here? 
They could be, I guess, if things got bad enough, if there were enough 
people starving to death, if there were enough people being killed, if 
American citizens were being killed because of the desperate straits of 
the Haitian people, possibly. But if we adopt different policies and if 
we do not invade that country, I think our chances of achieving our 
goals are greatly enhanced.
  I was in a debate with a Member on the other side of the aisle some 
time ago, and I said we must respect the lessons of history in Haiti. 
He said, well, that was history. That was a long time ago.
  Mr. President, our only guide to the future is things that happened 
in the past. We must examine our future plans in light of our 
experiences, as well as our knowledge of the present. Otherwise, we 
have no way of knowing what future actions to take.
  Finally, again, I would like to reiterate my strong recommendation 
that domestic politics not drive foreign policy and national security 
policy ever again. No matter who goes on a hunger strike, no matter who 
feels one way or another, our policy should be driven only by what the 
U.S. national security interests are.
  Let us address this issue in a bipartisan fashion. I know that I 
speak for every Member on this side that we want to consult, we want to 
advise and consent, which is the role of this body and the Members of 
this body, and hopefully we can stop this sharp division which is 
afflicting our country, as well as this body, over our Nation's policy 
toward Haiti.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pell). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me just take a couple minutes, if I can 
here, to focus on the matter before us, and that is the wisdom of a 
commission.
  We have had ample opportunity, and will I presume over the coming 
weeks and months, to debate policies in Haiti. Let me just say to my 
colleagues that I, for one, have not been an advocate for the use of 
military force in Haiti and have said publicly from the very beginning 
what my hopes would be. In fact, I felt very strongly that a well-
designed sanctions effort ought to be able to produce the desired 
results. If it cannot work successfully in Haiti, we ought to scrap 
sanctions as a policy everywhere in the world. If it cannot work in 
this country under these circumstances, given the dependency of this 
little nation on Europe, the United States, and Canada, then sanctions 
as a foreign policy instrument ought to be forever relegated to the 
junk heap.
  But I believe sanctions can work. I do not think that the military 
invasion of Haiti is warranted. That may change. I would not remove the 
military option as a potential policy option. I would not take it off 
the table. I never did during the 1980's in Central America. I never 
believed you ought to ever say what you would never do.
  But in the particular case of Haiti, it seems to me we ought to be at 
least rallying around the sanctions policy, particularly when the 
military option is not one with which any of us agree. I have not heard 
anyone say they are for using the military option at this time.
  If that is the case, then what can we do to try to change the 
situation in Haiti? We can rally international support, which this 
President has done. He has succeeded in garnering United States support 
for a resolution at the United Nations condemning the actions of the 
present holders of power in Haiti for throwing out the freely elected 
government. Similar support has also been forthcoming from the OAS.
  Why is it, in this institution, we find it so difficult to rally 
around at least some points on which we agree? The imposition of 
sanctions ought not to create this kind of debate.

  The future use of military force is obviously left for future debate.
  I was informed at 2 o'clock in the morning by then Secretary of State 
James Baker when the Bush administration sent troops into Panama. At 
the time of the call they had already landed. That is all the notice I 
got in the previous administration. Is that the kind of consultation to 
which my colleague refers? I went to the national media and supported 
President Bush's decision. I supported the use of force in Panama in 
that instance.
  And I supported President Reagan's decision to use force in Grenada.
  There were no commissions formed in either instance. We all knew what 
was happening in Panama. This did not happen overnight. There was great 
concern about Noriega, about the safety of American citizens, about the 
security of the Panama Canal, and about the security of U.S. military 
forces there.
  But I did not hear anybody in the body get up and offer to set up a 
commission on Panama. We all knew the deterioration in Grenada, the 
likely problems there. I did not hear anybody calling for a commission 
in either case.
  Can anyone tell me as to any crisis where this body went around and 
formed a commission ahead of time? The only one I know of is the so 
called Kissinger Commission, and that was set up pursuant to an 
executive order by President Reagan. It was a Presidentially 
established commission to look at Central America and included not just 
Members of Congress, but representation from organized labor, the 
academic community, and recognized experts in the field.
  So the notion of the commission as envisioned by this amendment is 
unprecedented. My colleague on the other side got up last week and 
properly pointed out that the amendment being offered by the Senator 
from New Hampshire to require prior congressional approval before any 
military action could be taken in Haiti was unprecedented and 
dangerous.
  I would not suggest that this particular amendment offered by the 
Senator from Kansas, the minority leader, falls into that category. It 
is not a dangerous amendment. But it is not an amendment that we ought 
to be adopting because it will come back to haunt us. I guarantee you, 
at some point in the future, on some other crisis, someone on this side 
will get up and offer a commission for some future President. We need 
to think here.
  My colleague just talked about history. We create history every day 
in this body. If you are going to suggest that we pay attention to 
history as we formulate our policies for the future, then you also have 
to be conscious of what you do as you write history.
  If this amendment is adopted today, we are writing history for future 
Presidents and future Congresses, and it is an unwise step.
  If you disagree with President Clinton on Haiti, fine. We will debate 
it and discuss it. But do not go around creating the precedent of 
establishing congressional commissions every time we do not like a 
foreign policy decision by the President.
  Why not a commission on North Korea? Why not one on Bosnia? Why not 
one on Somalia? Why not one on Rwanda? Why not go to all 60 crises 
around the world and form congressional commissions? How ridiculous is 
that? How ridiculous is that, and at what cost to the American 
taxpayers?
  Putting aside the issue of Haiti for the moment, and the merits or 
demerits of sanctions and future military action, the notion of 
establishing a congressional commission is a foolish idea and it ought 
to be, just on its merits, rejected summarily. We should move on and 
debate and discuss the issue of Haiti and other foreign policy issues 
as this forum provides us the opportunity to do so, and has 
historically.
  So I hope that on a bipartisan basis, thinking about history, 
thinking about the future, thinking about future Presidents, that we 
will reject this amendment. Whether it is on Haiti, North Korea, 
Bosnia, or about any other place in the world, for an ad hoc 
congressional commission to all of a sudden become the forum of 
resolving the particular crisis of the moment is not a sound idea.
  When it comes to the issue of Haiti itself, we ought to be able to 
develop a consensus around what policy makes sense. President Bush set 
the precedent in the Persian Gulf. He set the precedent of building an 
international response to the crisis in Iraq and Kuwait.
  I think he did an incredibly fine job of not just acting 
unilaterally, which he would have been justified in doing, in my view, 
but he built an international response within the world community.
  That took a lot of courage, a lot of hard work. It was tremendously 
painstaking to go through that process. His efforts set a new framework 
by which we would respond or try to respond to future crises.
  In the case of Haiti, President Clinton has done much the same by 
going to the United Nations, by going to the OAS, by building the 
necessary international consensus.
  I would think at least on the issue of sanctions, we all should be 
singing from the same hymn book. We should at least be trying to make 
that work. If my colleagues are so concerned about the use of military 
force in Haiti, then the one way I know to avoid that possibility is by 
strengthening the sanctions implementation, not by calling the very 
policy into question. We all know the problems with it--the Dominican 
Republican, the Haiti elite who seek to circumvent it. All the efforts 
made to thwart the effects of the embargo.
  But you cannot, on the one hand, denounce the sanctions and say that 
it is a terrible thing that is going on in Haiti and also exclude the 
use of any kind of military force unilaterally or multilaterally down 
the road to deal with the problem.
  What are the options at that point? Do we merely sit in the bleachers 
and watch one crisis after another unfold around the world and because 
of the cold war we do nothing; we absolutely do nothing? Is that the 
role of a great leader in the world? Do we lack the imagination and 
creativity to try and come up with some answers to these problems? That 
is the challenge of this body, to debate and discuss how you move 
forward.
  I know of no significant debate over the conditions that exist in 
Haiti today. They are deplorable. I know of no one who argues of the 
importance of a deteriorating situation in a country that is 95 miles 
from our shore. We ought to be able to rally at least on those points.
  I, for one, as I said earlier, am not enthusiastic at all about a 
military option here, for all the reasons that have been cited by 
people who are much more knowledgeable than I about the complications 
associated with military intervention.
  But, again, I do not know of anyone who would disagree with me that 
we ought to absolutely eliminate that option from our potential options 
in terms of responding to this situation.
  So, Mr. President, I will not spend a great deal of time on this.
  I merely point out, by the way, that I do not know of anyone here who 
thinks that General Cedras and his bullies down there deserve any 
comfort and support from this institution. And yet, anyone who has 
read--and I will put it in the Record, Mr. President--the comments of 
General Cedras in response to the Dole amendment, his response was that 
he strongly supports it.
  Now, my lord, that ought to be enough to cause concern here. Can you 
imagine?
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I will in a second. Let me finish these thoughts and I will 
be glad to yield.
  But those remarks ought to concern every single Member of this body, 
whatever else.
  To provide some sort of cocoon of protection for the next 45 or 50 
days here, that is just what this guy wants. That is what that crowd 
wants. If we are all in agreement that these fellows ought to go, that 
there ought to be a new chance in Haiti, then, on a practical level, 
having an amendment like this adopted would, in my view, even make it 
that much more difficult to achieve the desired results.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator, if I could just 
finish this.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator agreed to yield to me.
  Mr. DODD. I will yield to both.
  I come back, again, Mr. President, to the point of--putting aside the 
issue of Haiti--establishing congressional commissions on each foreign 
policy issue before us would be taking an unprecedented step, in my 
view. It would be a grave mistake. Second, on the issue of Haiti, at 
least as to where we are today, this body ought to be speaking far more 
closely with one voice. I do not expect unanimity. I know that is 
impossible. But we ought to at least say that this is a deplorable, 
dreadful situation. Sanctions at least are an option which could avoid 
the use of military force and they may just produce the desired 
results.
  On those notes, we ought to be able to strike some agreement.
  With that, I am happy to yield to my colleague from Vermont, without 
losing my right to the floor.
  I am still holding the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to propound a unanimous-consent 
request, if I might.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I understand this has 
been cleared on both sides--that the vote on or in relation to the 
pending amendment occur at 4 p.m. today, and that no second-degree 
amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been here well over an hour waiting 
to speak. I do not object to when we set the vote. I would only ask 
that those of us outside the Foreign Relations Committee have the 
opportunity to speak when this colloquy is finished, with the list of 
questions apparently of the Senator from Connecticut, that others of us 
be allowed to speak. And if there is time for that, I will not object.
  Mr. LEAHY. I just made the request.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. If we are going to have a fixed time certain, there are 
still people who want to speak. I am in the same situation as the 
Senator from North Dakota. I would like to get a unanimous consent that 
at least embraces those that are here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the specific request?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished manager of the bill 
whether or not his request would embrace the Senator from North Dakota 
and the Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time do they want? I will make it that way.
  Mr. DORGAN. Ten minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Ten minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote 1 hour 
from now--that we vote at 4:05 p.m. this afternoon--on or in relation 
to this amendment, with no second-degree amendment being in order; that 
the Senator from North Dakota be recognized during that hour for 10 
minutes; the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], be recognized 
during that hour for 10 minutes; and the Senator from Rhode Island, 
[Mr. Pell], be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object to the UC, Mr. President, I 
would like to be included in that, such that I could have no more than 
5 minutes to entertain brief questions and a colloquy with the Senator 
from Connecticut.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, and that the Senator from Virginia be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. For the purpose of the colloquy with the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LEAHY. For whatever purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Virginia, if he 
has a question.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy for the 
purpose of a question with the chairman of the subcommittee of the 
Foreign Relations Committee which embraces this hemisphere.
  The question essentially arose out of a briefing we had yesterday. I 
have made reference to it before. I failed to indicate that the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was also present at that time. It 
relates to the U.N. Charter.
  Time and time again, there was an assertion that the situation in 
Haiti threatens democracy, threatens stability in this hemisphere. But, 
as I examine the charter, the chief purpose of the United Nations was 
to maintain international peace and security, to take effective 
collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the 
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches 
of the peace; in other words, to confront aggression.
  Restoring democracy, in my judgment, was not one of the principles 
established in the U.N. Charter.
  Now, if the United States invades Haiti and American lives there 
presently are not threatened--and there were no facts given to us in 
the Intelligence Committee or indeed in yesterday's briefing which, in 
the judgment of the Senator from Virginia, imply imminent danger to any 
Americans--and if other vital national interests are not at stake, 
there is a real question about the international legal justification 
for military intervention.
  I do not see the instability in region resulting from the problems in 
Haiti. Truly, I am compassionate regarding the Senator from Florida and 
the problems of his State, as occasioned by the refugees, and such 
other nations and parts of the United States that have received an 
influx of the refugees. I am truly disturbed about the human rights 
violations. I am disturbed about many, many things, but it is not 
tantamount to the need for a U.S. invasion force to restore democracy.
  The nation right next door, the Dominican Republic, conducted a 
democratic election for president in May of this year, May 16 to be 
exact. Now to my question: Did the disturbances and violations that 
were then occurring in Haiti in any way affect that election so as to 
destabilize it, prevent it from happening?
  I say to the Senator from Connecticut, it did not happen. And, 
indeed, the normal orderly process of elections and governments in 
other nations in the hemisphere seem to be going forward.
  Mr. President, I ask that of the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may reclaim the time, with regard to 
the elections in the Dominican Republic, the jury is still out. There 
continues to be great controversy over the conduct of that election. 
There may need to be additional elections in some areas of the country. 
As to whether the situation had a destabilizing effect on the Dominican 
elections, I do not think so, although the subject of Haiti was an 
issue during the campaign.
  But by engaging even in a response to the question, I am not agreeing 
with the premise of the question of the Senator from Virginia, and that 
is that there is absolutely no justification on the grounds of 
potential instability or restoring democracy as a legitimate rationale 
for U.S. involvement.
  Our colleague from Arizona recently raised the issue of the great 
concern expressed in this body during the 1980's about the $5 billion 
that was spent in El Salvador, along the deployment of a significant 
number of military advisers; and in Honduras where we had significant 
military presence as a result of our policy in opposition to the 
Government of Nicaragua. One might argue that these situations 
constituted a kind of intervention. It did not amount to a battalion 
marching into the country, but nonetheless it was not benign. The 
arguments made at that time for justifying the expenditure of funds and 
for deploying military advisers was primarily to help restore democracy 
in those countries and to protect them from having democracy denied 
them.
  So I think we have to be careful about deciding here that these 
narrow concerns, only a canal or an oilfield, somehow, are the grounds 
under which we can exercise the option of the use of military force.
  Let me quickly point out, and I want to emphasize--and I do not think 
we ought to go into the details of the briefing yesterday, but this 
Senator certainly left that briefing without any impression that this 
administration is on the brink of a military invasion in Haiti. In 
fact, they very much want the sanctions to work. They are not 
enthusiastic about sending military personnel into Haiti. I know honest 
people can attend the same meeting and leave with different 
impressions.
  I have been in close contact with the administration. I have 
expressed to them my views as I have here on the floor. I do not think 
we need to use force to resolve this problem. At some point we may need 
to, but we do not today. So I think the more legitimate question is how 
do we make these sanctions work. How can we rally together here to 
express with one voice to the military leaders in Haiti that they 
should leave, and allow the legitimate government to return? We could 
provide invaluable assistance in that effort, instead of acting here as 
though we are divided over the issue of Haiti, which I do not think we 
are. I think we all would like democracy to come back. We would like to 
see the legitimate government restored in that country. We would like 
to see human rights abuses eliminated.
  Why can we not speak about what we agree upon and send the message to 
Gen. Raoul Cedras and his cohorts in Haiti that this body, this United 
States Senate, is united in its determination to stand up for a freely 
elected government and a people living in a country that is being 
deprived of that basic freedom? That would be a great asset. Instead, 
we are debating something that is not even remotely close to occurring. 
That is not a great service in the conduct of foreign policy.
  So, with all due respect, coming to the question of military force 
and justifications for it, I think, as other Presidents have done, you 
can find rationales. My colleague from Virginia and I have seen that in 
the past--Grenada, Panama, the Dominican Republic--in the use of 
advisers, whether it is Vietnam, Honduras, or El Salvador, Panama, we 
have found justifications when it has been necessary to do so. But at 
this point, how about trying to figure out a way that this body can 
play a constructive and supportive role and bring about the desired 
changes we all seek in Haiti? That would be a far more constructive 
debate, in my view.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for his response to my question. As I 
listened to him clarify his remarks, the Senator is in support of the 
goals sought by the distinguished Republican leader in his amendment. 
Call it something other than a commission, it is consultation here in 
the Congress to answer the very question the Senator raises.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reclaiming my time if I can, I would just 
merely say to my colleague from Virginia, this is an unprecedented 
action, to form a commission. We did not form commissions on other 
crises. This is a subterfuge. This is designed to divert and to draw 
attention in a different direction here. We do not need a commission. 
We have had 27 hearings in the last year and a half in this Congress. I 
have held two of them. One of them all day long.
  I say to my good friend from Virginia, I had only one or two Members 
on the Republican side show up during those hearings where there was 
extensive debate and discussion of all views. Where was the great 
interest in Haiti on those days?
  All of a sudden there is a great interest in commissions and meetings 
and consultations. But the fact of the matter is when we do our work 
here and we bring together the experts, the knowledgeable people 
representing a wide array of ideas and perceptions and views, no one 
shows. All of a sudden it gets to be a minicrisis here and everybody 
has a great interest.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might, I am going to be very brief on 
this. We debated this yesterday. We debated it for hours this morning.
  Let us not lose sight of what we are talking about. This is not a 
debate on whether we invade or do not invade. This is basically a way 
of giving an opening until next spring to Raoul Cedras. What this 
amendment does--let us not make any mistake about it--because of the 
congressional schedule, the amount of time it will take to pass this 
bill, go through conference, get the conference passed, get it signed 
into law, this commission would not report back until we have adjourned 
for the year and we would debate on it in February or March of next 
year. And that is why Raoul Cedras likes this amendment. That is why 
General Cedras is in support of this amendment. It is why President 
Clinton opposes this amendment. Because it gives a blank check to the 
rulers of Haiti; it removes all pressure from them until sometime next 
spring. They know it. Senators know it. The American people know it. 
That is why this amendment ought to be rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to use my 10 minutes under 
the unanimous-consent request.
  I oppose the amendment offered by the Republican leader, Senator 
Dole, for the reasons I think were well articulated by my friends from 
Connecticut and Vermont and by others. However, I would like to talk 
about the sanctions against Haiti for a moment, and about an amendment 
of mine on that subject.
  Although I have sat here awhile and listened to this debate, I may be 
one of the few Senators who does not claim to know what we should do in 
Haiti. But I understand what we should not do in Haiti. We should not, 
in Haiti, add to the burdens of those who are hungry and those who are 
sick.
  I support the international economic embargo. I understand the reason 
for the embargo. We are trying to bring pressure on a government that 
came to power by force and replaced someone who was elected at the 
ballot box.
  I respect that embargo and support it. But I also understand a little 
about Haiti and conditions in which the Haitian people live.
  I should say I do not claim to be an expert on Haiti. Many people 
here have traveled many times to Haiti. I have been to Haiti, but I am 
not a frequent visitor. The last time I saw Haiti was through an 
airplane window looking back as we took off.
  You could tell Haiti from the Dominican Republic. The Dominican 
Republic half of that island was green, and Haiti was brown, because in 
Haiti these desperately poor people have cut down most of the 
vegetation for fuel. In places that used to be rain forests there are 
now deserts.
  This is a country where there is the most gripping, wrenching, awful, 
desperate poverty I have ever seen in my life. These are people who are 
hurting badly.

  And while I support this embargo, I understand the committee will 
accept an amendment I am offering that says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of State, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Administrator of the 
     Agency for International Development should expedite approval 
     of valid applications for emergency medical evacuation 
     flights out of Haiti and for humanitarian aid flights to 
     Haiti, where such aid consists of food, medicine, or medical 
     supplies, or spare parts or equipment for the transportation 
     or distribution of humanitarian aid by nongovernmental or 
     private voluntary organizations.

  What does this amendment say? It says we want it to be within the 
power of our officials to expedite flights in and out of Haiti that are 
emergency flights, that evacuate people out or that bring desperately 
needed food and medicine in.
  Why do I offer this amendment?
  Let me quote from a newspaper piece.
  You do not believe everything you read in the newspaper. I fully 
understand that. Let me at least give a description.
  The headline reads, ``Haiti's Tiny Victims. As Embargo Tightens, 
Hospital in Slum is Crowded with Malnourished Babies.''
  I have leaned over the cribs in this hospital. It is St. Catherine's 
Hospital. It is in Cite Soleil where people live in open garbage dumps 
and sewer pits. I have had a dying child lifted up to put her arms 
around my neck. She did not want me to leave. I was the only thing she 
had, and I was only going to be there 5 minutes.
  The fact is, people in Haiti are suffering desperately for lack of 
food and lack of medicine.

       The children in the pediatric ward of St. Catherine's 
     Hospital lay in tiny cribs, many with intravenous needles 
     providing vital nourishment sticking in their legs because 
     the veins in their arms had collapsed. Those who could, 
     cried. Most lay silent and listless.

  That is exactly what it is in that hospital. This hospital is not 
bad. I toured hospitals in Haiti that did not have doors. There are not 
enough hospitals, and in the hospitals, there is not enough medicine 
and not enough anesthetic.
  My point is, yes, let us tighten the embargo against Cedras and the 
people who took power by force in Haiti. But let us make sure in every 
instance that humanitarian flights carrying medicine and food for Haiti 
get in and get out, and that we have people in our Government who will 
approve that with and through the United Nations.
  Two organizations that fly supply missions to Haiti have flown one 
flight each since early May. They used to fly several times a week. 
Twenty medical teams who have been planning the work in Haiti have had 
to cancel their plans because they knew flights had been shut down. 
This is a country where 51 percent of the children are malnourished; 51 
percent of their children are malnourished.
  Let me talk about how aid gets in by air--if it does.
  Under Resolution 917, the members of the Security Council have 48 
hours in which to object to a proposed waiver for a humanitarian flight 
to Haiti, a flight that would evacuate somebody who is desperately ill 
or get some desperately needed medicine in.
  However, the private aid organizations tell me that the waiver 
process is taking more than 2 weeks. Why does it take so long? Let me 
give an example.
  Say a private aid group wants to fly a humanitarian mission to Haiti 
with desperately needed medicine. The Agency of International 
Development gets the application. They forward it to the Treasury 
Department and the State Department. At Treasury, the Office of Foreign 
Assets Control looks over the application. Then at State, the Office of 
Sanctions Policy checks it out.
  If the application is OK'd at this level, then it goes to the 
International Organizations Bureau at State, which forwards it to our 
U.N. mission in New York, which gives the application to the U.N. 
Secretariat, which distributes the application to the 15 Security 
Council members and tells them the 48-hour clock has begun to run. All 
of this while some people are probably dying because they do not have 
medicine; all of this while kids are malnourished or starving because 
they do not have food.
  I hope, Mr. President, that this sense-of-the-Senate amendment--even 
as we retain the embargo, which is good policy--will send a signal to 
the poor people of Haiti, the people today who are hungry, who are 
suffering, who are sick, that we will not stand in the way of 
humanitarian flights, and that we will do everything we can to expedite 
the movement of food and the movement of medicine to the suffering 
people of Haiti.
  This is a desperate situation. These are our neighbors. This is a 
country nearly as close to Washington, DC, as the capital city of my 
home State, Bismarck, ND, is. You get on a plane and fly to Haiti, 
which is part of our neighborhood, and you will find some of the worst 
poverty in the entire world. We need to care about that.
  As I said when I started, I do not know what the answer is. When I 
was in Haiti, I thought what would I do if I had the opportunity to do 
anything there to fix it. The challenges Haiti has are so numerous and 
intractable and complex and deeply rooted that one barely knows where 
to begin.
  It is a difficult, difficult thing, but I know what we should not do. 
We should not, with this embargo, in any way prevent the flights of 
humanitarian aid to people who are suffering and who need international 
aid. So I ask that we, with the chairman and the ranking member's 
blessing, include this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We can all agree 
on this message, notwithstanding our disagreements on other aspects of 
our Haiti policy. The Senate should say to a kid that is lying in a 
crib in that hospital today that we care about you, and if you need 
medicine, we are going to try to help people, help organizations, help 
governments get you that medicine. If you are hungry we are going to 
try to help people get you that food.
  That ought to be a truly bipartisan message that we can send today by 
approving this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Post article I read 
from, as well as two letters from private relief groups that support 
this amendment, be inserted into the Record following the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the Senator from Kentucky, 
and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 30, 1994]

                          Haiti's Tiny Victims

                           (By Douglas Farah)

       Port-Au-Prince, Haiti.--The children in the pediatric ward 
     of St. Catherine's Hospital lay in tiny cribs, many with 
     intravenous needles providing vital nourishment sticking in 
     their legs because the veins in their arms had collapsed. 
     Those who could, cried. Most lay silent and listless.
       One of the silent ones was 3-month-old Johanne Dessosiers, 
     who weighed less than seven pounds and breathed with 
     difficulty. Her mother sat nearby, looking lost. A needle 
     delivering dextrose for rehydration was taped to Johanne's 
     left ankle, and her oversized head had only a few tufts of 
     discolored hair, indicating severe malnutrition.
       ``Most do not even come here because they are malnourished; 
     they come for other problems, because almost all of them are 
     malnourished,'' said Magid Cobdy, director of the hospital in 
     the heart of Cite Soleil, the capital's biggest slum. ``Then 
     they stay until they are healthy enough to leave.''
       Those who have made it to St. Catherine's are the fortunate 
     few. This is the only hospital in the sweltering slum, where 
     about 200,000 people live crammed into three square miles. In 
     Cite Soleil, life always has been bad. Children play in the 
     open sewers that cut through the rough streets lined with 
     crowded tin shacks.
       ``But things have gotten worse in the past 18 months,'' 
     Cobdy said, ``Many parents have no money to fee their 
     children at all, so they leave them here even after they are 
     treated. The embargo has made things dramatically worse. I 
     would say that 90 percent of the children here [in the 
     hospital] are malnourished.''
       In an effort to force Haiti's military regime to relinquish 
     power and allow the return of ousted president Jean-Bertrand 
     Aristide, the United Nations, led by the United States, has 
     placed Haiti under an almost complete commercial embargo. The 
     international community says the military is responsible for 
     the embargo and can prompt its lifting by stepping aside.
       But, while inconveniencing the rich, the embargo has thrown 
     hundreds of thousands of people out of work and caused the 
     price of food and medicine to soar. As more and more people 
     have lost jobs and basic food prices have doubled since 
     December, people's small reserves of cash or livestock have 
     disappeared, leaving no safety net at all. The decline in 
     economic well-being has led to a sharp drop in sanitary 
     conditions, with garbage piling up and the area's few clean 
     water sources becoming fouled.
       Food and medicine are exempt from the embargo. But getting 
     the necessary U.N. waivers is time-consuming, and the lack of 
     fuel has forced prices up anyway.
       ``They say you can bring in medicines, but the truth is 
     there is no transport,'' said a businesswoman who imports 
     pharmaceuticals. ``Practically, we are not able to bring in 
     anything. These are sanctions without thinking about the 
     logistics.''
       The main problem, according to health care professionals, 
     is that many medicines must be kept within certain 
     temperature ranges and have to be flown into the county. All 
     commercial flights to the United States have been cut off, 
     and charters require special U.N. approval.
       Private organizations are scrambling to find carriers and 
     are trying to put together loads large enough to make 
     chartering economically feasible.
       Cobdy said even dextrose and basic medicines are no longer 
     available on the open market and must be imported. He said 
     the hospital had two containers of medicine sitting in Miami, 
     waiting for clearance through the embargo.
       A U.S. official acknowledged medicine shipments are 
     ``episodic, a day-to-day operation'' but said the United 
     States felt it was ``critical'' to keep health programs 
     going. The official, as others have, called sanctions a 
     ``blunt instrument'' and said that ``in and of themselves, 
     they do not represent a policy.''
       ``We recognize this falls fairly indiscriminately on 
     people,'' the official said. ``We want sanctions that achieve 
     their goal without hurting people who are not responsible, 
     but sanctions really do not work so neatly as to do that.''
       Evidence of just how blunt an instrument the embargo is can 
     be seen in the rising malnutrition.
       In Port-au-Prince, according to a monitoring report 
     released in April by the U.S. Agency for International 
     Development, 57 percent of the children 5 and under were 
     malnourished, up from 42 percent in 1992. About 28 percent 
     are considered severely malnourished, against 20 percent two 
     years ago.
       Across the country, 51 percent of Haiti's children were 
     malnourished, according to the April report, and about 17 
     percent severely so.
       Karine Chassagne, a spokeswoman for the Centers for 
     Development and Health, the private foundation that runs St. 
     Catherine's, said the hospital has had to turn away a growing 
     number of cases because its 42-bed pediatric ward is 
     constantly full. The patients are referred to other hospitals 
     that have virtually no medicine either. Children who are left 
     at St. Catherine's are turned over to the state welfare 
     agency after their treatment.
       ``Some of them refuse to go, even if it means dying,'' 
     Chassagne said. ``That is how bad the other facilities are 
     now.''
       In addition to malnutrition, diarrhea and other common 
     ailments, Cobdy said, about 11 percent of the children are 
     HIV positive and will likely develop AIDS. Because AIDS 
     breaks down the body's immune system, its symptoms are often 
     those of the diseases it brings on.
       AIDS prevention programs have all but disappeared as the 
     economic crisis has worsened, health care professionals said, 
     losing most of the ground gained in the 1980s through 
     education and the distribution of condoms.
       In the pediatrics ward, the mother of Merystil Leickensia, 
     a wispy 5-month-old who weighs about eight pounds, gently 
     stroked her daughter's gaunt arms.
       The treatment for severe malnutrition takes 20 days, and 
     the hospital charges only a total of $3. ``I have 10 other 
     children,'' said the mother, Lesnier.
       ``She has a bad heart, but now they told me she was sick 
     from other things. I don't know what to do. She has to stay 
     here but what am I supposed to do now?''
       A nurse standing nearby said:
       ``We don't know what to tell them. It is a very difficult 
     moment.''
                                  ____



                                            World Hunger Year,

                                       New York, NY, July 7, 1994.
     Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Byron: I want to commend you for your efforts to 
     ensure that the people of Haiti receive needed humanitarian 
     assistance and to speed the delivery of that support.
       As you know, World Hunger Year has been concerned about 
     hunger and poverty in Haiti for several years. Past issues of 
     our quarterly, Why magazine, have addressed the challenges 
     facing that nation and the need for international assistance.
       Since the 1991 military coup ousting President Aristide, 
     the situation is Haiti has dramatically worsened. Nearly a 
     million Haitians each day rely on private voluntary 
     organizations to provide them with food for survival. 
     Millions of others are affected by the critical shortage of 
     medicine, anesthetics, and other necessities for basic health 
     care. This crisis has caused tens of thousands of Haitians to 
     flee their country, resulting in the drowning of thousands at 
     sea.
       We at World Hunger Year understand that the political and 
     diplomatic situation in Haiti is a difficult one, but we 
     strongly believe that the international community should not 
     sit idly by while millions of innocent Haitian men, women, 
     and children are caught in the crossfire. We support your 
     efforts to speed the delivery of humanitarian assistance to 
     this desperate people, and we thank you for your continuing 
     commitment to the poor and hungry who share our planet.
           Peace,
                                                       Bill Ayres,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                     Catholic Relief Services,

                                     Baltimore, MD, July 13, 1994.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: Thank you very much for your concern 
     regarding assistance to Private Voluntary Organizations 
     (PVOs) to enable us to continue our humanitarian assistance 
     programs in Haiti. CRS is in agreement with the draft 
     amendment to H.R. 4426, stating that approval of applications 
     for medical evacuation and aid flights should be expedited.
       The immediate initiation of regular chartered flights into 
     Port-au-Prince is essential to the continued functioning of 
     our programs in Haiti and to our current efforts to increase 
     outreach and beneficiary levels to in response to 
     increasingly difficult conditions in Haiti. Office supplies 
     and equipment, including computers, spare parts, vehicles, 
     etc. are urgently required.
       Moreover, the safety of our staff members living and 
     working in Haiti is fundamental. In this regard, we have been 
     working with International SOS Assistance, the Agency for 
     International Development and the Department of State to 
     assure that waivers are obtained for medical evacuation 
     flights within one hour of the request. We are deeply 
     concerned that the procedures currently laid out recently 
     required six hours for approval. This is unacceptable, and we 
     would like to see this situation resolved without delay.
       Thank you again for your interest and support of 
     humanitarian programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael R. Wrist,
                        (For Kenneth Hackett, Executive Director).

  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2245

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to be 
added as a cosponsor to the Dole-Warner-Helms-McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also wish to compliment Senators Dole, 
McConnell, and McCain for their speeches in favor of this resolution. I 
had the pleasure of witnessing and listening to Senator McCain who 
spoke at length about this administration's policy, and really, I must 
say, a failure of policy in regard to Haiti.
  I also would like to echo his desire to have a bipartisan foreign 
policy. But I am very concerned about the direction that this 
administration is taking toward Haiti and what they might do in the 
upcoming weeks or months. They are certainly laying the groundwork, if 
not the greater probability, for an invasion. I think the risk to the 
lives of American men and women to reinstate Mr. Aristide would be a 
serious, serious mistake, one that probably will have some fatal 
consequences. I do not think it is worth the life of one U.S. military 
person to reinstate Mr. Aristide.
  Senator McCain talked about his questionable past as a leader. I have 
attended some of the briefings that talked about some of his 
involvement in encouraging necklacing. I just cannot imagine that we 
would risk the lives of U.S. men and women to reinstate somebody with 
such a questionable record in the past.
  I also am critical of the administration's policy concerning Haiti. 
They have made a lot of changes. It was mentioned before that candidate 
Bill Clinton had a policy of: Well, we are going to reverse the Bush 
policy. But even before candidate Clinton was sworn into office, he 
changed that and he was right to change his policy. His policy as a 
candidate was irresponsible because it would encourage countless 
refugees coming to the United States. So he changed his policy even 
before he was sworn in as President of the United States, and he was 
right in doing so.
  Then he made a major change, actually announced it on May 8 and it 
became effective on June 16. I think Senator McCain referred to it as 
the ``hunger strike policy'' because of the hunger strike and also the 
pressure put on by the congressional Black Caucus to change policy.
  I noticed today's New York Times talks about: ``With Persuasion and 
Muscle, Black Caucus Reshapes Haiti Policy.'' I will read the first 
paragraph:

       In March, the 39 Members of the congressional Black Caucus 
     in the House introduced a bill to tighten the economic 
     embargo against Haiti, sever its commercial air links to the 
     United States, halt the summary repatriation of Haitian 
     refugees picked up at sea and block financial assets held in 
     America by Haitian nationals.
       The measure has not yet come up for a vote in Congress. But 
     now it hardly matters. Virtually all of its provisions have 
     been adopted as President Clinton's policy toward Haiti.
       ``It was a blueprint for what was done in the coming 
     months,'' said a congressional staffer who closely follows 
     Haiti. ``This is what they rallied around and pushed for. And 
     they got almost everything.''

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     With Persuasion and Muscle, Black Caucus Reshapes Haiti Policy

                         (By Steven A. Holmes)

       WASHINGTON, July 13--In March, the 39 members of the 
     Congressional Black Caucus in the House introduced a bill to 
     tighten the economic embargo against Haiti, sever its 
     commercial air links to the United States, halt the summary 
     repatriation of Haitian refugees picked up at sea and block 
     financial assets held in America by Haitian nationals.
       The measure has not yet come up for a vote in Congress. But 
     now it hardly matters. Virtually all its provisions have been 
     adopted as President Clinton's policy toward Haiti.
       ``It was a blueprint for what was done in the coming 
     months,'' said a Congressional staffer who closely follows 
     Haiti. ``This is what they rallied around and pushed for. And 
     they got almost everything.''


                         growth of black caucus

       The Administration's adoption of the group's ideas is 
     indicative of the political influence of the black caucus, 
     whose numbers in Congress rose to 40 from 26 after the 1992 
     election. But in pushing the Administration to take more 
     robust action on behalf of the ousted Haitian President, the 
     Rev. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the caucus, in the eyes of some 
     in Congress and the State Department, is leading the United 
     States inexorably toward military intervention--an issue that 
     has divided the caucus itself.
       From the dismissal in May of Lawrence A. Pezzullo as the 
     Administration's special adviser on Haiti and his replacement 
     by William H. Gray 3d, a former member of the caucus, to the 
     warmer embrace of Father Aristide and the new-found 
     reluctance of his detractors in the Administration to make 
     their private doubts public, the caucus has played a key role 
     in steering Haiti policy in the Administration.
       Members of the caucus tend to describe its contribution to 
     the Administration's Haiti policy in modest terms and to 
     stress that others have also played a role.


                        a role in policy change

       ``We've made legislative suggestions in a number of areas 
     and have had limited success in a number of areas,'' said 
     Representative Donald M. Payne, a New Jersey Democrat and the 
     highest-ranking black lawmaker on the House Foreign Affairs 
     Committee. ``I think we certainly have played a role in the 
     changing of the policy.''
       But others say the influence of the caucus is more 
     profound.
       ``The basic components of the black caucus approach-the 
     military is the problem, Aristide is the solution; we 
     shouldn't move away from him even two inches; we should do 
     nothing that smacks of any kind of alternative to Aristide, 
     like work with a prime minister--all that has been adopted,'' 
     said a State Department official who requested anonymity.
       One lawmaker who follows Haiti grumbled that Administration 
     officials consult more with key members of the black caucus 
     about the crisis than they do with the chairmen and ranking 
     members of House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over 
     foreign policy or Caribbean affairs.
       But the solicitation of the views of the caucus and the 
     appointment of Mr. Gray have failed to silence criticism of 
     the Administration's policy by some caucus members. Last week 
     representative Kweisi Mfume, Democrat of Maryland, the caucus 
     chairman, termed the Administration's efforts ``a policy of 
     anarchy, one that changes by the moments.''
       Representative Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat, 
     suggested that the black caucus having gotten much of what it 
     wanted, is simply keeping the heat on. ``It has been a spiral 
     of influence,'' he said. ``The President has listened and the 
     voices have been raised. the President has responded and the 
     voices have been raised further.''


                       hunger strike by robinson

       To be sure, the group cannot take credit alone for having 
     altered Administration policy. It was a 27-day hunger strike 
     by Randall Robinson, the director of the TransAfrica lobbying 
     organization, that galvanized the public and the black caucus 
     to place more pressure on Mr. Clinton to change his Haiti 
     policy. Florida lawmakers and groups advocating the rights of 
     refugees also played a role.
       Still the caucus's interest in the issue kept it alive when 
     many of the caucus members' colleagues in Congress and some 
     in the Administration might have let it die. Its accusations 
     of racism in the treatment Haitian refugees got the attention 
     of a Democratic President.
       The caucus's 40 votes--39 in the House and one in the 
     Senate--are an unspoken part of the calculation. While there 
     has been no explicit quid pro quo, some in Congress and the 
     Administration are counting on the caucus to provide critical 
     support for domestic initiatives like health care, welfare 
     reform and the crime bill.
       But while the caucus has helped push Mr. Clinton into a 
     more confrontational stance against the military rulers who 
     overthrew Father Aristide, the black lawmakers have yet to 
     agree among themselves on the most critical question when it 
     comes to Haiti: Whether military force should be used to 
     restore democracy.
       Some, such as Representatives Major Owens of New York and 
     Maxine Waters of California, have advocated armed 
     intervention to restore Father Aristide. Others, like 
     representative Ron Dellums of California, the chairman of the 
     Armed Services Committee, have voiced strong reservations on 
     the use of military force.
       ``We have not been, generally speaking, a group that 
     supported gun-barrel diplomacy.'' said Mr. Payne. ``But we 
     are seeing a changing world. I don't think any of the members 
     of the caucus initially supported military intervention and 
     there are still some who oppose it. But I do think the 
     majority of the members are slowly moving toward the point 
     where it might be the only solution at the present time.''

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is a vacillating policy, one, I 
might mention, set up and announced on May 8, almost identical to that 
which was pushed by the Black Caucus, and I guess Mr. Robertson, that 
has had a disastrous result. It has tightened up the economic leverage, 
it has tightened up the leverage on Haitians, it increased the poverty, 
the misery, the problems in Haiti, and it has greatly increased the 
number of refugees coming to the United States.
  I will read a couple things:

       The upsurge in the number of intercepted Haitians coincided 
     with a more generous assessment of whether they were genuine 
     political refugees eligible for resettlement in the United 
     States. For example, of the 1,705 Haitians interviewed 
     offshore at Kingston, Jamaica, some 515, about one-third, 
     were judged to be fleeing a ``well-founded fear of 
     persecution,'' the necessary legal standard for refugee or 
     asylum status. This compares to a rate of about 5 percent 
     judged to be political refugees at interview centers inside 
     Haiti.
       The simple message to Haitians: If you want to improve your 
     chances of being judged a political refugee rather than an 
     economic migrant, get in a boat.

  Mr. President, the net result was an upsurge of Haitians, thousands 
of Haitians, fleeing in boats. The policy of this administration, this 
change of policy, has cost in all likelihood hundreds of lives--we do 
not know how many lives--hundreds of lives, where individuals would 
take their families and risk everything getting in an old, rickety 
boat, thinking they might have an increased chance of coming to the 
United States because of this change in administration policy.
  They have modified this policy recently, and I think they have 
improved it, to discourage emigration. They said we are going to have 
``safe havens'' in other areas, so we are not going to have emigration 
automatically to the United States. They said we are going to have 
greater repatriation back to Haiti. So that has discouraged some 
refugees. That is some improvement.
  But this administration's policy of tightening the sanctions has 
basically encouraged an exodus from Haiti, greatly increased the pain 
and suffering of poor people, and I doubt it has really put that much 
pressure on the people they are trying to get the attention of, the 
military junta that is now running Haiti. I do not exonerate them from 
wrong or evil, but I think the administration, through its efforts, has 
been largely unsuccessful, and has greatly increased the pain and 
suffering amongst a lot of innocent individuals.
  The resolution that we have sponsored by Senator Dole and Senator 
Warner, Senator McCain, and others, I think is very positive. It does 
say let us look at having a bipartisan commission. There is a wealth of 
information in this body and in Congress and elsewhere, people I think 
would be willing to work together in a bipartisan manner to try to find 
some positive solutions.
  I do not think that Mr. Aristide is one of those solutions, and I do 
not think he should be the linchpin or the focal point or the 
foundation of United States efforts in Haiti. I think if we restore Mr. 
Aristide with the military intervention, sure, it could be done. But we 
are going to be making a long-term commitment of U.S. troops, risking 
lives, probably costing lives, to reinstate somebody who, as I 
mentioned earlier, has more than questionable credentials and 
background in human and civil rights. Anyone who would encourage 
necklacing, which is probably one of the most inhumane methods of 
killing and torture known--I question whether our Government should be 
backing such an individual.
  I happen to have a little difference of opinion with our colleague 
from North Dakota. I do not think we should be tightening the 
sanctions. My guess is we should be loosening them. I do not think this 
policy has done anything but increase the number of refugees fleeing to 
the United States.
  And I also really question whether or not the U.S. military should be 
in the business of nation building, and I think if we have a military 
invasion to reinstate Mr. Aristide, we are going to be in the nation 
building business for a long time, maybe 15 years, 10 years. Who knows?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We just had an experience with nation building within 
the last 2 years, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. We lost 18 
servicemen who were out of the 101st from Fort Campbell, KY, as the 
mission in Somalia slid from feeding people into nation building.
  So I want to commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his observation. 
We do not have to go back to 1915 and study the last time we were in 
Haiti to remember an experience that we have had where we used our 
military in nation building. We have had it within the last 2 years 
with an important lesson. We got out of there.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for raising that point.
  Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague, because I think he is exactly 
right. I do not believe we should forget the lessons in Somalia. And if 
one thinks, well, that could not happen in Haiti, it is closer to home, 
I would just totally disagree. If we go in and try to restore Mr. 
Aristide with bayonets, there are a lot of people who will not be 
eliminated in the first day or so who will be hiding in the hills, who 
will be not only against Mr. Aristide but now they will be against the 
United States. And so we will have some enemies.
  Can we occupy Haiti successfully? Sure. But at what expense? And what 
happens when we leave? My guess is probably quite comparable to when we 
left Somalia: You are going to see a return to chaos. And I am afraid 
that is what you are going to see in Haiti. In other words, we restore 
Mr. Aristide and he is going to either eliminate all of his opposition, 
probably murder or jail them, or whatever, and they are going to try to 
eliminate him. And so there is going to be significant opposition, 
probably for a long, long time, and we would be involved with United 
States military, which is not their role. They have not been trained 
for nation building; they have been trained to win wars. They were not 
trained as domestic police officers.
  I think this resolution is a step in the right direction. I 
compliment the sponsors of it. I hope we will be successful in passing 
it later this afternoon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill, the Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we can debate whether we should be involved 
in nation building or not. I feel as a general rule we should not. We 
can debate whether we should invade Haiti or not. As I have stated 
before, there is no great desire in my State, nor do I suspect 
throughout the country, to invade Haiti. I am certainly not someone who 
is standing here suggesting we invade Haiti.
  But that is not the issue. That is not the issue with this amendment. 
This amendment, whether intended or not, will have the effect of giving 
a blank check to the military dictatorship in Haiti until sometime next 
spring. What this amendment says, in effect--let us not make any 
mistake about it--is that neither the President of the United States 
nor the United States acting as part of the United Nations body or 
anything else can make any threat with any teeth in it until sometime 
next spring because basically it says that a congressional commission, 
study commission--boy, and that is going to thrill the American people, 
to know there will be another congressional study commission--that this 
congressional study commission will go out and report back sometime 
after we have recessed for the year so that we can debate next January 
or February or March about what we might do.
  That makes no sense at all. What it says is that while the Congress 
of the United States is gone for at least several months, the President 
cannot say or do anything with any force regarding Haiti.
  Now, I am not encouraging us to invade. I am not encouraging the 
United States to get into the exercise of nation building. But I do 
think that the President of the United States, as our chief foreign 
policy spokesperson, ought to have the ability to reflect the full 
power of our great and powerful Nation.
  This will do just the opposite. We cannot have a situation where we 
pretend that the Congress does not know what is going on. Anybody can 
pick up the newspaper and read it. Anybody can turn on television and 
watch it. It is very easy to tell what is going on down there in Haiti.
  They are talking about not having consultation. Well, we had 
consultation yesterday. There has been a whole list already put in the 
Record of the types of consultations we have had. It is said that the 
distinguished Republican leader was not consulted yesterday, but he was 
invited to the meeting, as were a number of the rest of us. Some went, 
some did not. But it was a very extensive discussion and consultation.
  The fact is, this says that the Congress, sometime after we have 
recessed for the year, can go out and study the matter. Whoop-de-do. 
That is going to start the ruling dictatorship in Haiti quaking in 
their boots. That is going to make them mend their ways. They will 
certainly stop the killing knowing that during our election campaigns, 
during the recess, during Christmastime, a group of Members of Congress 
will study this issue.
  Come on. Let us be serious. If we want to have a debate on whether we 
should or should not invade, let us do that. And we have had some 
debate on that issue. It was defeated in the Senate. If we want to have 
another one, let us have a freestanding resolution and do just that. 
But let us not pretend on an appropriations bill that an amendment 
designed to put this subject off and to tie the hands of the President 
until sometime next spring is good foreign policy. It is not. But it is 
why General Cedras supports this amendment and why President Clinton 
opposes it, and I daresay any President, Republican or Democrat, would 
oppose it. But any dictator in the position General Cedras is in would 
be all for it.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the parliamentary procedure, the Senator 
from Massachusetts is guaranteed 10 minutes, and the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee 5 minutes, so as long as everyone 
understands that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That would leave 10 minutes remaining. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Georgia have at least 5 minutes of those 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, just 3 days ago the military leaders of 
Haiti issued a direct challenge to the international community by 
expelling the United Nations and the Organization of American States 
human rights observers. France has announced that it will end all 
commercial flights to Haiti and other countries are likely to take 
additional steps to increase pressure on the regime in response to the 
coup leaders' actions.
  If we adopt this amendment before us, the message we send to the coup 
leaders will be that instead of taking action, the United States is 
going to study, review, and analyze the situation. This amendment says 
that 45 days after this bill is enacted into law, the United States 
will issue a report and recommend policy options. I do not believe this 
is the correct course of action for the United States, which has taken 
a leadership role on resolving a crisis only a few hundred miles from 
our border.
  As the commission reviews the situation and issues its report, the 
coup leaders will continue to murder, rape, and terrorize its 
opponents. Haiti's rogue leaders will come to the conclusion that the 
United States is not serious about its commitment to the restoration of 
democracy in Haiti, as will other military leaders and potential 
dictators in the hemisphere. Clearly the coup leaders in Haiti support 
the concept of forming a bipartisan commission as General Cedras made 
clear several months ago, since it buys them time, and diminishes the 
pressure exerted by the international community.
  This amendment is not about whether you agree with the current policy 
against Haiti; it is about limiting the power of the President. 
Congress has ample opportunity to express its opinion on United States 
policy toward Haiti and there is no lack of information on the 
situation in Haiti. Administration officials have appeared at 26 
hearings, briefings, and consultations on Haiti since January 1993 and 
Members and cleared staff have access to intelligence information on a 
daily basis.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish that this was really a serious 
debate as the time that has been consumed in the last hours might 
indicate. But this Senator at least cannot help but feel that there is 
a brazen, political element to this particular amendment that defies 
any of the assertions put forward to try to justify it and certainly 
that defies any of the so-called merits that have been asserted on its 
behalf.
  We have heard talk about the Kissinger Commission as a precedent. But 
the Kissinger Commission was not imposed by a minority of the U.S. 
Senate that opposes almost anything a President does. It was set up by 
the President of the United States himself, Ronald Reagan, in an effort 
to try to enhance an already troubled policy in Central America, Latin 
America. So the President sought the Kissinger Commission as a means of 
enhancing his policy. It was not something congressionally mandated.
  Second, the Kissinger Commission involved people from outside the 
U.S. Congress. This amendment is such a patent charade it defies the 
imagination. There is not a Member who is on this amendment who cannot 
accomplish through their committee or their current responsibilities 
what this amendment seeks to do. Every single member of this so-called 
commission which the minority leader seeks to establish is already a 
Member of Congress, already has responsibilities of oversight, and 
already should have done every single thing that this amendment calls 
on them to do.
  It is almost insulting that days into our policy in Haiti, years into 
it with respect to refugees, because it was after all President Bush 
who began the policy with respect to the refugees, that they now call 
upon on the Congress to assess the humanitarian, political, and 
diplomatic conditions in Haiti. I mean, that is almost an admission of 
dereliction of duty, that now they are coming to us and saying, ``Oh, 
by the way, there is a problem in Haiti, and we ought to take 45 days 
to figure out what it is.''
  You can laugh at that, if that is what this is about. But that is not 
what this is about. This is about the scorched Earth policy similar to 
that on health care, where we try to deny the President any victory, 
deny the President any rights to exercise his responsibility, deny him 
certainly what Presidents Reagan and Bush were granted by every Member 
of the majority here.
  This Senator learned about the invasion about 1 o'clock or midnight, 
I think it was, when we got a telephone call telling us the airplanes 
were in the air and the troops were being dropped. This Senator woke up 
in the morning to find pictures on national television of our Navy 
Seals landing in Somalia. There was not one 45-day commission. There 
was not one consultation about it. It just happened.
  Do you know, Democrats did not run to the floor, and, say ``Stop the 
policy, let us have 45 days to figure out whether it makes sense.'' We 
supported the President of the United States in both instances; most of 
us. And we suggested that, yes, the President has the right to conduct 
that foreign policy, though we might disagree with it ultimately. In 
these cases we thought it was appropriate.
  Why did we go into Somalia? We went into Somalia to feed people and 
to try to create some order out of chaos. I did not hear a lot of 
Republicans down on the floor questioning the vital national interest. 
There was no hue and cry about defining national security. What a brave 
President to put our troops in there in the interest of feeding human 
beings who are dying.
  They are dying in Haiti.
  Here is the minority leader. He wants to come to the floor and figure 
out what is happening in Haiti. He wants to determine what is happening 
in Haiti and suggests that Haitians may be put at risk if somehow the 
American military has not become involved.
  Haitians are at risk today in Haiti. They are taking the rickety 
boats, they are being eaten by sharks, and they are drowning because 
they are at risk today because a couple of thugs have taken over the 
government. What has happened to our friends on the other side of the 
aisle who used to rail against dictators and totalitarianism? 
Totalitarianism is what exists in Haiti today, brutal, repressive, 
oppressive totalitarianism. Twelve young Haitians turned up in shallow 
graves yesterday. And they want 45 days to figure out what is happening 
in Haiti.
  This resolution is an admission of dereliction of responsibility to 
know what is happening in Haiti. What is the policy of those who say we 
are on the wrong track? They say lift the embargo; in effect, 
capitulate, grant a victory to the thugs who took over the government; 
tell them there is no price to pay, the international community is 
impotent, the United States of America is impotent, and everybody is 
impotent in the face of those thugs who want to take over a government. 
And, by the way, if at the same time you want to involve yourself in 
drug schemes with thugs in Colombia and sell the drugs in America, go 
right ahead because the United States is not going to do anything about 
it.
  Is that the policy? I mean, think, maybe we ought to negotiate. Well, 
folks, we did negotiate. Cedras went to New York. There was a great 
discussion. They signed an agreement: Come on in, we are going to get 
out, here is the agreement. President Aristide, in fact, has bent over 
in a number of different ways to include people who are totally 
inamicable to his political view. But he built a coalition. He turned 
over power to a Prime Minister who was acceptable to parties, and they 
still reneged. They still went back on their word. And now we have the 
very thug that was in charge of this operation applauding the 
Republicans for this particular amendment. They should be ashamed.
  General Cedras says this is a good amendment. General Cedras says by 
all means pass this. If ever there was a message to Members of the 
Senate, ``Don't vote for this,'' it ought to be the support of General 
Cedras for this effort.
  Mr. President, the Members of the Senate voted 65 to 34 a few days 
ago to respect Presidential power. I was at that briefing yesterday. 
There is no imminent military effort. It has been made very clear that 
there are a number of different interests at stake here, but they have 
not ripened to a point where that should be considered. We do not have 
Americans in jeopardy today. We do not face a situation where there is 
chaos in the streets. We do not have the same numbers of refugees 
pouring out of the country. I read nothing in that, except that the 
military option is still very much on the table, and well it ought to 
be very much on the table.

  What President of the United States in his right mind, in an effort 
to try to leverage the United States in the diplomatic arena, is going 
to take away one of the most important tools we have? I have never 
heard one Republican come to the floor and suggest that in Grenada, 
Panama, Somalia, or elsewhere, we ought to have a commission made up of 
only Congressmen who have the power to do what the commission is asking 
them to do, and they have not done it anyway.
  We have had 27 different briefings and consultations between the 
House and Senate. We have had eight different hearings in the Senate 
alone. So what is this? What is going on here? Is this an effort to tie 
the Senate up in a debate so that we are sending a message to the 
country that there is somehow great uncertainty about this President's 
foreign policy? Is that the message? Is the message that somehow we 
have to question, at every step, what this President is doing and 
weaken him in the effort of simply questioning and therefore create a 
self-fulfilling prophecy? Whatever happened to bipartisan foreign 
policy where we worked together to advance the interests of the United 
States of America rather than the interests of one party in returning 
to the White House?
  I have no illusions, because I know that the American people are not 
watching every nuance of a debate like this, and they are not even 
going to read some of the central stories about it. It is not engaged 
in the American public yet. But that is what this Senator believes is 
going on. It is sad for this country. We agree that these thugs ought 
to go. We agree that democracy ought to be advanced. And we owe it to 
this President to have the opportunity to see if this policy could work 
and to speak in one voice about that.
  The administration made it very clear in the briefing yesterday that 
they intend to return, they intend to consult, they intend to talk to 
the leadership and follow the rules.
  So I respectfully hope that colleagues will summon the same sense of 
responsibility that they exercise in protecting the constitutional 
rights of the President, 65-34, and indicate again their willingness to 
stand up for the Constitution and for the prerogatives, and not to wind 
up in a situation where day-after-day and week-after-week we display 
such a split message that we in fact enhance the ability of these thugs 
to continue to do what they are doing today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment, and 
lest there be any confusion about the reason for it, it is because I 
believe that it, in essence, is an expression of concern against 
invasion. We remove all the explanations about why something is done or 
is not done. This resolution expresses a desire to go slow on the 
utilization of military intervention.
  I do take some exception with the analogy utilized by the Senator 
from Massachusetts. I am rather surprised that he would match Somalia 
with Haiti. The match is not a good one. It is true that we sent 
military forces to Somalia for the purpose of a humane distribution of 
food to nearly one-half million people who were destined to starve. No 
one took exception with that mission. But this administration decided 
to change that mission and make it one of military intervention in the 
outcome of a domestic crisis, which I might add, goes on yet today. And 
when that mission changed to one of being an interloper in a domestic 
dispute, to change who would lead the country, the United States and 
United Nations fell into disrepair and ultimately had to leave.
  This resolution argues that we should not do that again in Haiti. We 
have a severe--everybody admits--domestic crisis there. There is no 
moral standing for the leadership. But it is a domestic crisis, and we 
do not want to set the doctrine that the United States, through the use 
of its military, will intervene in every domestic crisis in this 
hemisphere or around the world to resolve it.
  Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that in the last 
few years, there have been 10--I repeat, 10--overthrows of democratic 
governments by dictators or the military in such countries as Ecuador, 
Honduras, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina. Are we saying, as we come to 
the new century, that if there is a domestic turmoil, the doctrine of 
the United States will be to send in the marines and settle it; that we 
will flex our muscle and come into a domestic crisis and pick who will 
sit in power?
  I do not believe that ought to be the doctrine of this country as we 
come on the new century. Yes, we should exert international pressure 
and work for international cooperation; and, yes, we should try to be a 
good neighbor, but not a policeman and not a military hammer to settle 
every domestic crisis in our hemisphere. This resolution moves toward 
that expression. I might say again to the Senator from Massachusetts, 
this amendment--forgetting General Cedras--speaks to the will of the 
American people today who are telling this President, this 
administration, and this Congress that this is not where American blood 
should spill. And they are right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senators that there are 
7 minutes left in the debate.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      telecommunications in egypt

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would seek to address a question to the 
ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. As the Senator 
knows, priority is given in this bill, as has been the case for several 
years, to our relations with Egypt. One of the projects that we have 
supported with our financial assistance to Egypt has been the 
development of telecommunications in that country. Telecommunications 
are an essential element of the modern economic infrastructure of a 
nation and are of course vital to the economic growth of any country. 
The question that I would address to my colleague is whether he agrees 
with me on the importance of telecommunications in fostering the growth 
of the economy, and especially the private sector, in Egypt? I would 
also ask if he would concur with me in concluding that this type of 
infrastructure, and the economic growth that it promotes, will enhance 
political stability as well?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator, that 
the development of modern telecommunications plays a fundamental role 
in the economic and political development of Egypt. In fact, I have 
raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Administrator of 
AID and our Mission Director in Cairo. I have been somewhat frustrated 
by their approach to American commercial interests.
  Mr. GRAMM. Then the Senator also agrees with me that, in the process 
of procurement in connection with this assistance to Egypt, AID should 
follow procedures that do not disadvantage United States producers of 
telecommunications equipment and services, that we would expect AID to 
give United States producers, world leaders in this industry, full and 
fair opportunities in the procurement connected with this United 
States-funded project?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Absolutely. I would say to my colleague that it is 
misguided and inappropriate for the procurement process for a U.S. AID 
project to disadvantage in any unfair manner any U.S. producer from 
providing goods or services for this project.
  Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator.


                           amendment no. 2245

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, what is the present business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2245.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I move to table the Dole amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion of the 
Senator from Rhode Island to lay on the table amendment No. 2245. On 
this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is 
absent on official business.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--42

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Wallop
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2245) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if we could have order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have now had 2 or 3 days of debate on 
this bill regarding Haiti. Obviously, between now and 6 o'clock, if 
there is anything else submitted on Haiti we will be able to vote on 
it. I would hope we will not have more. I hope we would feel there has 
been strong enough statement on this issue.
  I appreciate those Senators who voted with the position that I had 
taken as manager of the bill; with the position of the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in moving to table this.
  Mr. President, I would note that I did not question the concern of 
Senators, of all Senators, on Haitian policy. It is a difficult 
question. I would suggest that it is not a question that can be settled 
on amendments to this appropriations bill. It is something that is 
going to be difficult enough for the President and his Cabinet to 
grapple with. I urge the President and his Cabinet to continue real 
consultation with both Republicans and Democrats alike, the leadership 
of the House and the Senate, on this issue. I urge the President to 
seek a consensus among us.
  That consensus does not mean that the President is necessarily going 
to take a position that is a popular one. Quite often, in such major 
foreign policy issues, the decision cannot be made by public opinion 
polls or by what might be popular at the moment. But usually, if these 
decisions are to work, they require bipartisan cooperation and 
bipartisan support. I suspect that that is available.
  I hope, though, we would not have amendments to this bill that are 
designed more, as happens on occasion, to raise polarizing opinions 
than the consensus necessary. But in this case, the Senate did 
absolutely the right thing. Had this amendment been agreed to, it would 
have given a time of isolation for General Cedras which would extended 
well into next spring, a time isolating him from the pressures of the 
United States, of the United Nations, and others. It would have given a 
green light at least well into the spring for any actions to be taken 
by the dictatorship in Haiti.
  So I am glad that we did not give them that green light. I am glad 
the President now has the ability to continue at least to seek the 
support of our allies, but also, if he is to make threats or to take 
steps necessary to carry out U.S. policy, that they will be credible 
threats, it will be credible policy.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky, Senator McConnell.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I am not aware of 
any more amendments on Haiti.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments 
and the committee amendments be laid aside in order to offer a series 
of amendments for my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I 
understand this is so as to comply with the standing unanimous-consent 
agreement.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is right.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Further reserving the right to object, what is the 
procedure?
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I can respond to the Senator from Arkansas, under 
the unanimous-consent agreement, amendments have to be in before 6 
o'clock. I am simply complying with the UC agreement.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator be willing to offer one for me while 
he is doing it?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If he prefers, I will ask the distinguished floor 
manager on this side.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator making the request has the floor. 
Is there any objection to the request?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Am I correct that if we submit amendments to the manager 
of the bill, that the manager of the bill will offer them and they will 
be considered to be in compliance with the 6 p.m. deadline?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I have no further objection.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it 
be in order for me to offer the following amendments to the desk en 
bloc; that they be considered as having been offered under the terms of 
the consent agreement; and that they be laid aside for further 
consideration at a later time.
  The amendments are as follows:
  Six McConnell amendments, one relevant, one on the Middle East, one 
on AID, congressional presentation, documents reform, NIS; a Helms-
Murkowski amendment; a Dole-Murkowski amendment; a Murkowski Japan 
Commission amendment; a Nickles amendment; a Pressler U.N. amendment; a 
Helms-Roth U.N. amendment; a McCain Cambodia amendment; a McCain IESC 
amendment; a McCain NATO amendment; a Helms Colombia amendment; a Helms 
Israel amendment; a Cohen Germany amendment; and two Domenici relevant 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
standing unanimous consent agreement, it be in order for me, under that 
unanimous consent agreement, to send to the desk amendments on behalf 
of Senator Wellstone regarding Indonesia; Senator Lautenberg regarding 
an extradition matter; myself regarding Indonesia; Senator Bumpers 
regarding the People's Republic of China; Mr. Graham regarding Colombia 
and Bolivia; Mr. Graham regarding Peru; and Mr. Dorgan regarding Haiti.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I am correct in the parliamentary situation, I ask the 
pending amendment be laid aside in order that my amendment be 
considered at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        Amendment No. 2265 to the Committee Amendment on Page 2

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is agreed to on both sides. 
It is to eliminate an earmark in the bill which directs funds to 
certain organizations which promote democratic institution building in 
China.
  I believe we all agree on the need to support such democracy 
programming to further our Nation's interests and the democratic 
aspirations for the people of China.
  I believe, however, that funding selections for democracy building, 
as with all Federal grants, should be subject to merit-based 
competition.
  The amendment will delete the earmark and clarify that the funds 
should be allocated based solely on competition.
  I would like to note that one of the organizations which is 
identified to receive the earmark is an organization on which I serve 
as chairman of the board of directors. I am honored the committee 
thinks highly enough of the organization to select it for this program.
  It is not an earmark, but we request the funds should be subject to 
competition. Yet, I want to be clear that I oppose congressional 
earmarks. Funds should be competitively allocated for democracy 
building in China, just as they should be in any other area of Federal 
grantmaking.
  I believe the amendment will accomplish this goal. I want to thank 
the managers of the bill for accepting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2265.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the pending committee amendment add the 
     following:
       ``Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     Title II, not less than $600,000 shall be available to 
     support democracy programs in the People's Republic of China: 
     Provide further that the Agency for International Development 
     shall make these funds available for the activities described 
     in the previous proviso on a grant basis to U.S. non 
     government organizations, on a competitive selection basis, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law.''
       Provided further that the following section of the bill is 
     null and void. ``Provided further that of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $600,000, 
     shall be available to support parliamentary training and 
     democracy programs in the People's Republic of China: 
     Provided further That the Agency of International Development 
     shall make funds available for the activities described in 
     the previous proviso on a grant basis to the International 
     Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law.''

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am certainly ready to accept the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the McCain 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2265) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2266

      (Purpose: To require a report on NATO eligibility criteria)

  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. McConnell].
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am about to call up an amendment that 
is at the desk under the UC agreement. I am trying to ascertain what 
its number is. I will report to the Chair momentarily.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator wants to describe 
what it is while they locate the number?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I call up amendment No. 2266, which is already at the 
desk under the UC agreement. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2266.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Assuming the amendment might have been about to be 
read, let me ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       SEC.   .
       (a) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the President 
     shall submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations 
     defining specific military, economic and political standards 
     required to gain admission to NATO; Provided further, that 
     such report is not limited to the principles enunciated in 
     the Partnership for Peace; Provided further, such report 
     shall include an assessment of measures which would be 
     necessary to guarantee the armed services of Poland, Hungary, 
     the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia 
     are capable of military interoperability with NATO and 
     fulfilling other member responsibilities.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 120 days 
     after enactment of this Act, excess defense articles made 
     available under sections 516 and section 519 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be provided to carry out the 
     measures identified in subsection (a) with regard to military 
     interoperability.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any debate on the amendment?
  Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, for nearly half a century, NATO has 
advanced U.S. interests in peace and in security in Europe. With the 
end of the cold war, it seemed appropriate to reassess NATO's future 
role in the region.
  Because of its success, because its role has been so central to 
Europe's stability, many of us felt it would be prudent to expand its 
influence east and draw in former members of the Warsaw Pact. A number 
of Senators have had a great interest in NATO expansion: Senator Brown, 
Senator Simon, and others, and there may be other amendments on this 
subject yet on this bill.
  Unfortunately, the administration has opted to take a wait and see 
approach which they called the Partnership for Peace.
  Now, Mr. President, from my perspective, the administration missed a 
historic opportunity to turn adversaries into permanent allies to 
advance our global interests in peace. Instead of defining our 
interests, we deferred to Russian sensitivities. The administration 
claimed they did not want to draw any new lines. My view, Mr. 
President, is that they did not want to make any tough choices.
  At the time of the NATO summit, the administration offered a number 
of nations eager to join NATO the assurance that participating in the 
Partnership was a first step in that direction.
  So 21 nations, including Russia, endorsed the principles in the 
Partnership calling for expanded regional cooperation. Then they waited 
and wondered what the whole arrangement really meant.
  I questioned Secretary Christopher and Deputy Secretary Talbott about 
the Partnership, asking them what could these nations expect from 
participation in the PFP. They assured me each nation would work out 
terms of participation which reflected their own capabilities. I kept 
hearing that the goal was to strengthen cooperation. To what end, I 
asked. And I must say to date it is still rather murky.
  Now, Mr. President, several nations have now advanced detailed plans 
outlining their interests in integrating specific defense capabilities 
as a steppingstone toward NATO admission. Those plans are still under 
consideration and no doubt will be carefully considered right through 
the end of this century.
  My frustration and the frustration of the Polish leadership, the 
Lithuanians, the Hungarians, and others stems from a sense of futility 
over this Partnership for Peace exercise. This is really a peculiar 
shell game which has been difficult to argue against and even more 
difficult to defeat.
  The administration maintains that many of these nations interested in 
becoming members of NATO do not meet the appropriate standards for 
admission which, of course, raises the obvious question: What are the 
standards? What are the standards to get into NATO, Mr. President?
  In a hearing before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Secretary 
Christopher told me he meant the standards in the NATO Charter. So I 
picked up the charter, and pointed out that the only standard appears 
to be a commitment to support the alliance and its goals of regional 
peace and security. So there are not any clearly defined standards for 
admission into NATO, and in effect admission into NATO is if members of 
NATO want to allow you in. There are no standards.
  The next argument is whatever the standards, the partnership is the 
appropriate stepping stone, the PFP. Yet, here again no common 
requirements for participation are spelled out in the PFP either. Each 
country endorses principles and then negotiates integrated agreements 
for joint military activities.
  Mr. President, this is bound to produce distrust, competition, and 
disappointment. Believing an annual joint exercise will trigger 
admission, a participant may eventually learn that their neighbor 
integrated air defenses, and conducted joint air exercises, giving them 
an advantage.
  My amendment is an effort to define just what a nation must do to be 
eligible for admission into NATO. It is quite simple. To define just 
what a nation might do to be eligible for admission to NATO, the 
amendment essentially has three parts.
  First, it asks for the administration to report on the military, 
political, and economic standards and obligations which must be 
fulfilled to secure admission into NATO. In other words, we are asking 
the administration to really think through that which has never been 
thought through, certainly not in the post-cold-war period. What are 
the standards for admission to NATO?
  Second, it asks the administration to assess what measures must be 
taken to meet those standards by seven specific nations: Poland, 
Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
  So we have said in No. 1, what are the standards. In No. 2, these are 
the countries.
  Finally, the amendment would make available excess defense articles 
from our NATO inventories to improve the capabilities of those nations 
in order to meet the standards which this amendment calls upon the 
administration to set. We are not writing the standards. We are simply 
asking the administration to write the standards. I think that is a 
reasonable approach. For 6 months these nations have been told they do 
not qualify for NATO admission. Yet no one can define with any 
precision what test they have failed to meet.
  Let us go over that again. Imagine desiring to enter an organization 
like NATO. It is sort of like getting into a club, I guess. What do I 
have to do to get in? And you are told by the members of the club, ``We 
cannot reveal to you the requirements for membership.'' It is an 
incredibly frustrating experience for the nations of Eastern Europe 
that have had so much frustration over the last 50 years under the 
domination of the old Soviet regime.
  So we are saying here we are calling on the administration, not 
writing it for them, not telling them what the standards ought to be, 
but to come up with some standards so that those who seek to get in 
will know what they have to do to get in.
  The frustration that I am referring to was evident again last week 
during the President's trip to Europe. As reported in the New York 
Times, the President's major address in Poland was characterized as 
``more an exhortation than a plan of action.'' His vagueness on when 
Poland would be welcomed into NATO provoked the Foreign Minister of 
Poland to comment, ``Our expectations were not completely fulfilled. I 
would have liked our dialog on NATO to have gone much further than it 
did.''
  Imagine the foreign minister saying that publicly, presumably while 
the President was just there or had just left.
  This disappointment was echoed by the chairman of the parliament's 
foreign affairs committee, the Polish foreign affairs committee, who 
said President Clinton's speech ``Did little to satisfy our security 
expectations. To us this represents a lack of momentum.'' This is the 
Polish chairman of the foreign affairs committee.
  Clearly, when you look at this, you would have to agree. It seems 
past time to move beyond exhortation and develop a clear plan of 
action.
  There has been a lot of discussion here today on other amendments, 
and yesterday on other amendments about the Congress is trying to tell 
the President what to do. We are not writing the standards for him 
under this amendment. We are asking him to come up with clear 
standards.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, this will be a good exercise for all 
of NATO to try to discover for the first time, other than opposition to 
communism, what the criteria for admission to the most effective treaty 
alliance in the world ought to be.
  I do not want to see NATO's strength compromised nor its capabilities 
degraded. That is why I would like to hear what the administration has 
to say about the standards it expects should be upheld to safeguard 
NATO's effectiveness and its future.
  Without a sense that they can and will be offered a real opportunity 
to participate in the most important treaty which has shaped European 
history, many may seek alternatives. I think we need to think that 
through. In the absence of a real opportunity to get into NATO, what 
alternatives might be sought by those countries, bearing in mind the 
last 50 years and there fear of renewed Russian national ambitions? 
This holding pattern may encourage Central and Eastern Europeans to 
form an alliance with a nuclear nation such as Ukraine or resurrect old 
ties.
  My view is that this is a dangerous and unnecessary risk, and there 
is a sensible alternative. There really is a sensible alternative. 
Spell out the expectations, and offer these new and struggling 
democracies the guidance, and the means to fulfill the goals. Tell them 
what the standards are, and help them meet those standards so that they 
can be admitted into NATO.
  We can work toward a common purpose, or we can abandon these nations 
to regional and ethnic and religious rivalries protected only by the 
uncertainties of the Partnership for Peace.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment as an affirmation of 
NATO's important role, both now and in the future.
  Mr. President, this is an issue unlike a lot of foreign policy issues 
we deal with with an American constituency. I have, for example, 
earlier this year on similar amendments received letters from the 
Polish-American Congress, also from the Slovakian Ambassador, and the 
Polish Foreign Minister, and many of us have gotten similar letters--I 
am certain I am not the only one who has--expressing in slightly 
different ways the very same frustration.
  I ask unanimous consent that those letters appear in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Polish-American Congress,

                                 Annandale, VA, February 28, 1994.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: In view of your greatly valued 
     support for our concerns over the security of Poland and 
     other nations of East Central Europe, I felt you may be 
     interested in seeing my recent memorandum on the subject to 
     the National Security Council.
       As you know, there have been a number of important 
     developments since President Clinton visited Brussels, 
     Prague, and Moscow. They further strengthen the case for your 
     Amendment and the Senate Resolution that Poland, Hungary and 
     the Czech and Slovak republics be accepted without delay as 
     members of NATO.
       Time is not on our side, and the extension of the Alliance 
     may be much more risky when the worst (and unfortunately the 
     most likely) scenario becomes a reality.
       With deep appreciation for your understanding of this 
     problem, I remain.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                        Jan Nowak,
                                                National Director.
                                  ____



                                     Polish-American Congress,

                                 Annandale, VA, February 25, 1994.
     Hon. Richard Schifter,
     Special Assistant to President and Counselor, National 
         Security Council, Old Executive Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Schifter: Thank you very much for offering me the 
     opportunity to share with you our concerns. Let me summarize 
     briefly my main talking points.
       The Partnership for Peace (PFP) does not fully satisfy the 
     security needs of East Central Europe, but it is perceived by 
     us as a first step in that direction.
       We welcome the continuation of the Administration's 
     dialogue with our ethnic communities initiated in Milwaukee 
     by Vice President Gore and Deputy Director Berger, and we are 
     looking forward to our meeting in the White House on March 2. 
     It is greatly appreciated that the Administration listens to 
     our views and takes them into consideration. I particularly 
     have in mind inclusion in the drafting of the PFP framework 
     document of international rules of conduct, as proposed by us 
     in Milwaukee. It is our understanding that these rules would 
     exclude from future membership in NATO any state guilty of 
     using coercion or intimidation in dealing with other 
     countries. Making respect for sovereignty and territorial 
     integrity a condition of PFP partnership provides a certain 
     protection against great power expansionism.
       We also welcome public assurances by the President, Vice 
     President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
     United States Ambassador to the United Nations that any 
     threat to East European countries subscribing to the PFP 
     would be considered a threat to the United States. While such 
     pronouncements do not provide guarantees of security in any 
     formal sense, they will remain on the record.
       There are still four remaining sources of our concern:
       (1) The imperialistic rhetoric emanating from policymakers 
     in Moscow has not, so far, met with any unequivocal rejection 
     or opposition from the United States.
       (2) United States attention and support remain focused on 
     Russia, to the exclusion of other CIS states.
       (3) Developments in Russia are likely to make the future 
     extension of NATO to the east more difficult and risky than 
     today.
       (4) The high cost of PFP membership may prove incompatible 
     with the policy of economic austerity and balanced budgets 
     required by international financial institutions.
       Enclosed please find a few relevant quotations from 
     statements by Russian policymakers in the past few weeks. 
     There is a visible escalation in the claims to domination 
     over other countries of the former Soviet bloc. It appears 
     that the lack of any response from the United States and its 
     allies may be creating a dangerous perception in Moscow that 
     the West will not attempt to oppose the reintegration of the 
     Soviet Union under the banner of Russian nationalism.
       Any attempt to achieve this goal by force, blackmail or 
     economic pressure will create a threat to the former Warsaw 
     Pact countries. It is therefore in the interest of the peace 
     and security of Europe and the United States that warning 
     signals should be given to Moscow at this early stage, when 
     Russian foreign policy is still in its formative stage.
       The failure of economic reforms in Russia and even partial 
     return to the old economic system would unleash 
     hyperinflation. The further deterioration of economic 
     conditions will favor extremist and authoritarian elements on 
     both wings of the political spectrum. Under such 
     circumstances, the extension of NATO would pose greater risk 
     of confrontation with Russia in the future. Time may not be 
     on our side. This is why, in our opinion, the United States 
     should not postpone the issue until the worst scenario 
     becomes a reality.
       We take the position that East Central Europe should be 
     integrated as soon as possible in the Atlantic and European 
     community. The old lines of division were created in the Cold 
     War. They should not be allowed to separate the Western 
     democracies from countries which are struggling to 
     consolidate their independence, democratic systems and a free 
     market economy. Petrification of the old lines dividing the 
     continent is detrimental to the enlargement of democracy and 
     should be ended as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Jan Nowak,
                                                National Director.
                                  ____


                               Quotations

       Andrei Kozyrev, at his press conference in Beijing:
       Talk about neo-imperialism diverts attention from the real 
     problems associated with the specific role of Russia in 
     maintaining stability in the Confederation of Independent 
     State, which is in the vital interest of the vast region of 
     Central Asia.--Siegodnia, No. 19, 2/1/94.
       Andrei Kozyrev, at the meeting with heads of the North 
     Caucasus region:
       Voices are raised in the West about Russian imperial 
     ambitions. They are teaching us the rules of good behavior. 
     We do not need any lessons about the rules of the UN or the 
     CSCE. What we need is practical assistance in the 
     implementation of those rules in the Caucasus and the entire 
     post-Soviet area.--Siegodnia, No. 22, 2/4/94.
       Viktor Komplektov, Minister for Special Assignments, at the 
     round table discussion on Russian foreign policy:
       We repeat continuously that foreign policy should have some 
     priority list. Reactivation of the Soviet Union is now put 
     forward as the first priority. Does this reflect the frame of 
     mind of our people? In my view it does. Russia is now being 
     called an empire, not in the socialist but in the old Russian 
     sense of the word. * * * We should conduct an active policy 
     to the near abroad in accord with this old tradition.--
     Niezawisimaje Gazietta, No. 20, Feb. 1994.
       Pavel Grachev, Minister of Defense, in an interview with 
     Interfax, February 2, 1994:
       We cannot support PFP if it becomes a vehicle for the 
     gradual extension of NATO to the countries of the former 
     Warsaw Pact and Baltic states without consultation and the 
     consent of Russia.
                                  ____

                                                    Embassy of the


                                              Slovak Republic,

                                                 February 2, 1994.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I wish to express our sincere 
     gratitude and admiration for your initiative and efforts to 
     speed up the process of admitting the new democracies of the 
     Central Europe to NATO.
       Your amendment No. 1279 to the State Department 
     Authorization Bill expressing the sense of the Senate 
     regarding the participation of new democratic nations of 
     Central Europe in The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a 
     great contribution to the vital discussion about NATO's 
     future.
       We support the idea that it is in the interests of the 
     Western Countries to enlarge the space of stability and 
     security in Europe and to offer the new democracies, which 
     have demonstrated both the capability and willingness to join 
     NATO, an unambiguous chance to become part of this most 
     reliable security structure in Europe in the nearest future.
       Central European countries on their unpaved roads of 
     transition have to face a number of difficulties and 
     challenges including the lack of security guarantees.
       I am convinced that the NATO security umbrella would enable 
     the Central European countries to concentrate on a quick 
     economic and political transformation. The existing security 
     vacuum and possible destabilizing effects generated by a 
     negative development in the close proximity may have negative 
     influence on the process of the advanced stabilization in 
     Central Europe.
       The Slovak Republic like other countries of the Visegrad 
     Group have passed a vital political decision to strive for 
     its integration into European and Transatlantic political, 
     economic and security structures. Therefore it also has 
     launched numerous diplomatic activities aiming to demonstrate 
     its desire and preparedness for incorporation into NATO 
     without needless delay.
       Slovakia by sharing the same democratic principles and 
     values like NATO countries is ready to be an active 
     participant in projects and missions within the framework of 
     the ``Partnership for Peace''. At the same time we will 
     continue our diplomatic efforts for convincing Russia that 
     our participation in NATO is not posing a threat to its 
     security.
       I would be glad to inform you on our approach and 
     activities connected with Slovakia's goal to reach a full 
     NATO membership. In this connection enclosed find the 
     Memorandum of the Government of the Slovak Republic on 
     joining Partnership for Peace by the Slovak Republic.
       I wish to thank you once again for the attention you pay to 
     the problems and concerns of new democracies of Central and 
     Eastern Europe.
           Sincerely
                                                     Peter Burian,
                                            Charge d'Affaires a.i.
                                  ____

                                               Republic of Poland,


                                  Minister of Foreign Affairs,

                                         Warsaw, February 2, 1994.
     Senator Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I would like to thank you for your 
     interest in and support for the Amendment No. 1280, 
     concerning the extension of NATO membership. In my opinion, 
     the Amendment is an important step in the right direction: 
     the issue of NATO membership is of great significance to 
     Poland and we are grateful for your opinions.
       The Amendment will, I believe, influence the process of 
     admitting new democratic nations of Central and Eastern 
     Europe to NATO and will serve the important objective of 
     deepening the trust between our countries and the United 
     States.
           Yours sincerely,
                                               Andrzej Olechowski.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, clearly, not only what these countries 
in Eastern Europe are saying, but the Americans who came from those 
countries who live in many of our States can give us some criteria that 
can be met. It is so murky now. And vague promises that someplace 
sometime down the road admission into NATO might be possible is not 
enough.
  I commend the President for moving in that direction with the 
Partnership for Peace. But it is obviously that the PFP has not 
satisfied the concerns that those countries have, and that the American 
constituents of all of us who came from those countries have, that we 
are unwilling to provide clear guidance as to how a country could 
aspire to be a member of NATO.
  We are not writing the guidelines for the President under this 
amendment. We are saying simply, Mr. President, it is high time maybe, 
after 50 years and after communism died, if NATO continues to have 
admission--and we all believe, I think, that it does--and if we believe 
there might be some circumstances under which it ought to expand--and I 
think we all believe those circumstances are there--what are the 
criteria? What are the criteria?
  So this amendment calls upon the administration to come to grips with 
the issues of establishing the criteria for admission into NATO, and 
once those criteria are determined it suggests that there are seven 
countries that are clearly first line candidates for admission, and 
that we ought to through foreign assistance and military cooperation to 
provide them help in meeting the guidelines.
  And to our friends, the Russians, I say there is nothing to be 
threatened about here--nothing to be threatened about. But you can 
understand--we can all understand--the nervousness of those countries 
that were under the Soviet boot for all of these years, particularly 
when they hear utterances from people like Zhirinovsky, and when they 
hear these expressions from Russian leaders, you can imagine their 
concern.
  So I hope this is something the Senate might adopt. I do not think it 
is in any way threatening to the administration. We are not 
substituting our judgment for their judgment. We are simply suggesting 
to them that they decide what NATO is all about. What is the mission in 
the post-cold-war period?
  Madam President, I want to, at this point, ask for the yeas and nays 
on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
added as a cosponsor to the McConnell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I might observe for the body that this 
simply gives the administration an ability to lay out in a report the 
kind of cooperation they feel is appropriate and needed. It is not, at 
least in my view, binding on the administration in terms of forcing 
them to do something they wish not to do. It simply makes it clear that 
the Senate has an interest in doing the appropriate things in 
cooperation with these countries.
  I strongly support the McConnell amendment. I think it is a plus to 
this bill. I support it because I think it has implications beyond 
simply the requested report. I support it because I think it is 
terribly important that this Nation do all it can to make sure that the 
dark wall of domination not fall over these countries again.
  This amendment does not commit us, but it certainly sends a message 
that we have an interest in the freedom of these nations; that we care 
about their opportunity to determine their own destiny; that we believe 
the family of mankind should be concerned about their independence and 
their opportunities to control their own world and their own future.
  This is a small step, but it is an important step. It sends a signal 
that this Nation still cares about freedom and democracy, and that the 
slowness that has developed in Europe with regard to extending the 
umbrella of NATO is one that we are concerned about. This, I think, 
sends a message that we intend to move forward in that process and, as 
such, I commend the Senator from Kentucky. I think he is one that still 
holds that torch of liberty aloft for others in the world to see and 
appreciate. I think his effort here is particularly important.
  I might observe that his measure includes some countries other than 
the ones we spelled out in the Brown-Simon amendment, which at the 
appropriate time we will offer. But with regard to the Slovak Republic, 
let me mention that I, this day, talked to the Ambassador of Slovakia, 
and he indicated in strong terms that Slovakia is interested in 
entering NATO and cooperating with NATO in working toward peace and 
freedom within the NATO framework. So the fact that Slovakia is not 
included in my amendment in no way indicates a reluctance or failure or 
unwillingness of the Slovak Government to enter NATO. I must say that I 
am delighted that Slovakia is included in the McConnell amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Colorado. 
He and the Senator from Illinois have been very involved in these NATO 
issues. We have had discussions at various times about different 
approaches to it. I am glad that he and Senator Simon are going to 
offer their amendment as well, which I intend to support.
  There are some nuances or slight differences between these approaches 
on these NATO amendments, but I think the message is clear. If I may 
speak for myself--and I think I am also speaking in similar language to 
Senator Brown--the message is clear that there has to be some criteria 
for admission to NATO, or just tell them no. If it is never going to 
happen, the best thing the President could do would be to look them in 
the eye and say: NATO is never going to expand, and it is never going 
to develop a post-cold-war mission, and we do not know, quite frankly, 
what is going to happen to NATO.
  It seems to me that if NATO is going to be a vibrant, living 
organization, it must change like all organizations do with changed 
conditions. We have an enormous number of recently freed Eastern 
Europeans, who are looking to us for some clear guidelines to getting 
into an organization that they view is central to the defeat of the old 
Soviet Union.
  So I commend the Senator from Colorado for his excellent work in this 
area. This is an area in which I expect all of us to continue to work 
in the coming months, until we get a better result from the 
administration than we have gotten to date.
  Mr. BROWN. If the Senator will yield, I cannot help but reflect--and 
I know every Senator has strong feelings in this area--I cannot help 
but reflect on how terribly important this issue is that the Senator 
has brought to the floor. Every Senator, I believe, has read of the 
tragedy of 1939, of the failure of the free world to respond when 
Poland sought to maintain its freedom and independence. I cannot 
imagine anyone that does not pray, when they reflect upon the failure 
of the free world to come to the defense of Poland.
  Everyone knows that the failure to maintain Polish freedom added to 
the challenge and burden of maintaining American freedom as the years 
of World War II advanced. Everybody knows if we had stood up at that 
time, that the loss of life in World War II would have been a small 
fraction of what it eventually turned out to be.
  I suspect that every Senator is well aware of the tragedy that 
occurred when our Government--the Government of the United States--
urged the freedom fighters in Poland, the resistance leaders, to 
surrender to Soviet authorities, and what I believe is a true 
conviction that they would be negotiated with and be involved in 
developing the leadership and control of Poland after the war. I think 
every Senator is aware of the fact that the Soviet authorities then 
turned around, rather than negotiate with those leaders, arrested them, 
imprisoned them, tried them and executed them.
  Everyone's heart breaks who thought the second time we failed to 
guarantee or failed to cooperate or failed to aid in securing the peace 
and independence and freedom of the Polish people.
  I know of no one who looks at the Yalta agreements, that saw Poland 
fall behind the Iron Curtain, who does not regret--and I do not mean to 
suggest that everyone agrees that the compromises that were made there 
were bad; obviously there are differing opinions on that--but I know of 
no one who would not, if they had their preference, have insisted that 
Poland be guaranteed its freedom and independence.
  I cannot help but reflect on the fact that we are now at a crossroads 
where history could repeat itself, where the question of whether Poland 
remains free and independent and able to determine their own destiny is 
very much on their table. And the question is whether or not we make a 
clear statement that we believe Poland ought to be free and Poland 
ought to be the master of their own destiny, or whether we send a 
message that the freedom and independence of Poland and other countries 
in Central Europe is in play.
  My own belief is that if we are ambiguous at this time in history, if 
we fail to step forward, if we fail to make our convictions clear, if 
we fail to stand up for the freedom of the Polish people, the Czech 
people, and the Hungarian people, that we send an invitation that it is 
all right for other countries to reassert control over Central Europe, 
that it is all right for others to seek to dominate them once again.
  That is not a message that it is in our interest to send, nor is it a 
message in the interest of the people of those countries to send, nor 
do I believe it is in the interest of any free people around the world.
  So I once again commend the Senator. I think by acting here today, we 
send a very strong message, one that has enormous potential in years 
ahead.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Colorado.
  It seems to me that reasonable people would conclude that the Soviet 
Union, the Russians, should not be offended by this. After all, they 
are supposed to be our allies now. They are professing not to have 
nationalist ambitions anymore.
  That certainly has not been the policy of the Yeltsin government.
  So what is the problem here? I mean, who are we worried about 
offending--an ally? I do not think the Russians should view NATO 
anymore as an enemy. We are supposedly all developing a friendship 
here.
  But what we are talking about here with this amendment and what 
Senator Brown and others have talked about on amendments that they have 
offered on other bills is reassuring countries in Eastern Europe, who 
have had a recent--they have actually had this experience before, but 
they certainly had it in the last 50 years--a horrible experience with 
occupation.
  Now, our assumption is the Russians have changed, but just in case 
that may not be true, just in case that may not continue--who is to say 
what could happen if the Russian election in 1996 produced a new 
President who appealed to the Russian people to forget their internal 
problems and reassert their nationalism? It will not be the first time 
a politician in a country anywhere in the world running for election 
seeks to divert attention away from domestic problems by focusing on 
international affairs.
  What if someone gets elected President of Russia who says, ``My 
principal goal is to reassert the Soviet empire''?
  It seems to me it would be exceedingly difficult to carry out that 
campaign message if NATO by that time had, in a friendly and 
nonthreatening way, simply moved out to include some very, very obvious 
candidates for admission to this collective security umbrella.
  So what we are saying in this amendment, Madam President, is define 
the criteria. Maybe that was not necessary in the forties. It was 
pretty clear what the motivation was in pulling NATO together in the 
forties. It was to stop communism.
  But at this point, maybe they do need some criteria for NATO, and we 
are asking the administration to draft some criteria so that these 
aspiring Eastern European countries will have a sense of what standards 
they have to meet in order to get in. And beyond that, once we draft 
the criteria, let us help them meet that criteria with the transfer of 
military equipment or whatever we may have in excess capacity to help 
bring them up to whatever standards we may conclude that NATO would 
require its members to meet.
  We do not know what the standards are today. They are not written 
down. There is not a word about what the standards are.
  That is what this amendment is about. I hope the Senate will approve 
it. I think it makes a lot of sense. It will really hold out some 
genuine hope, Madam President, to the aspiring members of NATO that 
there are specific criteria written down that they could meet, and 
actually meet with our assistance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I ask the distinguished manager on 
this side of the bill, is it his intent to proceed now to a rollcall 
vote on his amendment? I hope that he will.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have the yeas and nays. I do not know whether there 
are other speakers. I do not see the manager.
  Mr. HELMS. May I ask the manager of the bill, would it be appropriate 
for me to ask unanimous consent to be recognized to call up amendment 
No. 2254 after this amendment has been disposed of?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I certainly will not have any objection.
  I was thinking. We have been sort of trying to see about possibly 
going back and forth. I wonder if we could just hold on just for a 
minute and let me just check. Sooner or later, we are going to get rid 
of them anyway. I know we are going to be here very, very late tonight 
voting on them. So I am perfectly willing to. Let me check on that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am not sure who has the floor. Does the Senator from 
North Carolina have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. I have the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator was addressing a question, and I was striving 
to answer.
  Mr. HELMS. Would it be in order for me to ask unanimous consent that 
I be recognized to call up this amendment unless a Senator designated 
by the distinguished manager of the bill on the other side has an 
amendment to offer? Would that be all right?
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from North Carolina allow me just to 
add one amendment to the list?
  Mr. HELMS. Absolutely.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 2293

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning World Bank 
    loans to countries acting to enforce the Arab boycott of Israel)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, consistent with the unanimous consent 
agreement under which we are operating, I send to the desk an amendment 
by Senator Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2293.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.   . Loans to Nations that enforce the Arab boycott 
     of Israel.
       ``The President should use the voice and vote of the United 
     States in all multilateral banks of which the United States 
     is a member to ensure that no loans are given to nations 
     which support or encourage the primary, secondary or tertiary 
     boycott of Israel.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] 
has an amendment at the desk, and as soon as we ascertain the number, I 
am going to ask unanimous consent that it be withdrawn and one that 
apparently corrects an error in it replace it.


                           Amendment no. 2289

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 2289, on behalf of Mr. Bumpers and others, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2289) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2294

(Purpose: To delete funding for parliamentary training and democracy in 
                    the People's Republic of China)

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment I now send to the desk be substituted in its place under the 
earlier unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
  The clerk will report the last amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Bumpers, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2294.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the pending committee amendment add the 
     follows:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds appropriated under this Act shall be available to 
     support parliamentary training and democracy programs in the 
     People's Republic of China.''

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment by the Senator from Kentucky be temporarily laid aside so 
that the Senator from North Carolina may be recognized to offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 2295

 (Purpose: To clarify the intent of Section 577 of H.R. 4426 regarding 
                     the U.N. War Crimes Tribunals)

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk which has 
been agreed to by all concerned. I ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2295.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In Section 577, strike ``other bodies'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof, ``commissions''.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would clarify a provision adopted earlier in these proceedings. I feel 
obliged to do so in light of the fact that this provision could be 
misinterpreted.
  Chairman Leahy offered an amendment creating section 577 in the 
bill--amendment No. 2110--that appropriated up to $25 million in goods 
and commodities to be offered to the United Nations in its efforts to 
investigate war crimes.
  I only wish to clarify what I understand was the intent of the 
committee that these funds should be directed to investigate charges 
regarding genocide or other violations of international humanitarian 
law. My proposed technical changes clarify that the funds being made 
available will only be used for tribunals and commissions whose sole 
responsibility is the investigation of crimes of genocide or other 
violations of international humanitarian law.
  I understand this amendment has been agreed to by the managers of the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If there is no objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2295) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, for the interest of those who may be 
watching back in their offices, we are going to have at least one 
rollcall vote, I would guess, around a quarter of 6. If there is any 
other amendment requiring a rollcall vote, if any Senator could bring 
that matter forward, possibly before then, we may be able to stack some 
votes.
  I say around a quarter to 6, and that is assuming there are not other 
Senators who wish to speak on the McConnell amendment.
  But I urge Senators who have amendments that they want considered to 
come forward.
  I could think of very few places I would rather be than on the Senate 
floor. A few come to mind--at my home with my family, accomplishing 
some things in my office, back in Vermont with friends. But, other than 
that, of course, I would much rather be here. And I expect the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I are going to be here until 
the wee hours of the night.
  I just urge those who may not find this the place that they love the 
most, that they may want to come forward and move their amendments with 
the idea that we may get out before midnight this evening.
  But we will continue. We have a number of amendments at the desk. By 
6 o'clock tonight, we will have a finite number of amendments at the 
desk. It would be my intention to start disposing of those.
  But I do not want any Senator to come over at 11 o'clock tonight and 
suddenly say I really want to speak on this amendment, when they 
probably have a good opportunity to do that right now.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.


                    Amendment No. 2266, As Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a modification of my amendment 
to the desk.
  Mr. LEAHY. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2266), as modified, reads as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       Sec.   .
       (a) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the President 
     shall submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations, the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations and Armed Services defining 
     specific military, economic and political standards required 
     to gain admission to NATO; Provided further, that such report 
     is not limited to the principles enunciated in the 
     Partnership for Peace; Provided further, such report shall 
     include an assessment of measures which would be necessary to 
     guarantee the armed services of Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
     Republic, Slovkia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are capable 
     of military interoperability with NATO and fulfilling other 
     member responsibilities.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 120 days 
     after enactment of this Act, excess defense articles made 
     available under sections 516 and section 519 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be provided to carry out the 
     measures identified in subsection (a) with regard to military 
     interoperability.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 2296

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment 
on behalf of Senator Levin be offered appropriately under the overall 
unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2296.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On Page 22, after line 12, add the following new sections:
       (  ) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     New Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall not 
     be used to support activities or projects that will 
     significantly harm biological diversity or environmental 
     quality.
       (  ) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     New Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to 
     Environment and Natural Resources) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will just note that there are about 14 
minutes left if anybody is wanting to offer an amendment under the 
unanimous consent agreement entered into a couple weeks ago. They have 
just about 14 minutes left to do so. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I ask my friend when he desires to 
ask for the rollcall vote to begin?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the amendment of the Senator from 
Kentucky is one that reflects substantially on the jurisdiction of 
another committee, in this case the Committee on Armed Services. We are 
checking with the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to see if 
they are going to have a position on it. That is why we have not gone 
to a rollcall vote yet.
  Madam President, I am going to reserve the remainder of whatever time 
I have, and I will yield the floor and at the appropriate time I will 
call up amendment No. 2254 relating to the remarks that I have just 
made. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that amendments 2282, 2294, 
2272, 2281, and 2275 be considered second-degree amendments to the 
committee amendments which they propose to amend.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment Nos. 2297 and 2298

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that an amendment by Senator 
Dole and an amendment by Senator Specter and Senator Shelby may be 
offered under the unanimous consent agreement under which we are 
operating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments en bloc numbered 2297 and 2298.


                           Amendment No. 2297

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2297 for Mr. Dole.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 10, line 10 after the word ``law'' and before the 
     period (.) add the following new proviso:
       ``Provided further, that of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, not less than $15,100,000 shall be made 
     available for the Cooperative Association of States for 
     Scholarships Program and not less than $3,000,000 shall be 
     made available for the East Central European Scholarship 
     Program''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2298

  (Purpose: To enhance congressional review of efforts to facilitate 
            peace in the Middle East and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2298 for Mr. Specter, for 
himself, and Mr. Shelby.
  The amendment is as follows:

       (a) On page 102, line 1, strike all that follows after 
     ``Gaza'' through the end of line 3 and insert a period after 
     ``Gaza''.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec..  . (a) Additional Congressional Expectation.--Section 
     583(b)(5) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) amending its National Covenant to eliminate all 
     references calling for the destruction of Israel.


   enhance congressional review of the obligation of funds to the plo

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak 
briefly on an amendment offered by me and Senators Shelby, D'Amato, 
Craig, and Gramm and which is being accepted by the distinguished 
managers of the bill.
  Several weeks ago, joined by Senator Shelby as cochair and 12, now 13 
other Senators--a broad bipartisan group--I announced the formation of 
a new Senate caucus intended to monitor compliance by the PLO with the 
Mideast peace accords and to provide watchful oversight of State 
Department monitoring of PLO compliance.
  The other Senators who have thus far joined this caucus are Senators 
Brown, Bryan, D'Amato, Durenberger, Inouye, Lautenberg, Lieberman, 
Mack, McConnell, Pressler, Reid, Simon, and Helms.
  The amendment which is being accepted today--and I would like to 
thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Leahy, and ranking member, 
Senator McConnell, for their cooperation in reaching agreement on the 
important principles advanced by this legislative action--will give 
Congress the statutory tools to ensure that United States taxpayer 
funds not be released for the benefit of the PLO unless the PLO 
complies with its freely undertaken obligations to renounce and control 
terrorism and to live in peace with Israel.
  Under existing law, the PLO is classified as a terrorist organization 
prohibited from receiving, directly or indirectly, United States 
taxpayer funds unless the President suspends this prohibition by 
certifying that the PLO is honoring its commitments to renounce 
terrorism and live in peace with Israel.
  As the months have passed since the historic handshake on the White 
House lawn, however, there has been both a pattern of PLO violations of 
the accords--continued terrorism, undenounced and 
unredressed by Chairman Arafat and no change to the Palestinian 
National Covenant to eliminate calls for the destruction of Israel--and 
a distinct lack of State Department vigilance in monitoring the PLO 
noncompliance.
  Regarding PLO violations, the Zionist Organization of America has 
issued a series of weekly reports, as well as summary studies, which 
charge the PLO with scores of terrorist acts, none of which have led to 
discipline by the PLO. Without accepting ZOA data, or any other data, 
as beyond critical review, clearly there is a pattern of PLO violation 
that cannot be ignored.
  Regarding the State Department reports on PLO compliance, for 
example, Senators Lieberman and Mack have pointed out that these 
reports have read ``like a defense of the PLO's lapses.''
  In response to this situation specifically, the amendment being 
accepted today does the following:
  First, it strikes the ``national interest'' proviso from section 565 
of the 1995 Foreign Operations appropriations bill concerning 
``Limitation on Assistance for the PLO for the West Bank and Gaza.'' 
This leaves the President with only certification of PLO compliance 
with the peace accords, under the Peace Facilitation Act, as the means 
to obligate appropriated funds. This is as it should be. Would it be an 
urgent national interest of the United States for the President to 
provide United States funds to a PLO which the President was not able 
to certify as in compliance with the peace accords, a PLO still engaged 
in terrorism and pledged formally to the destruction of Israel? 
Clearly, it would not.
  Second, the amendment amends the Peace Facilitation Act so as to 
express, with the force of law, an expectation by the Congress that the 
PLO will honor its pledges and actually amend its National Covenant, 
eliminating calls for the destruction of Israel.
  Let me remind my colleagues of just some of what makes up the PLO's 
Covenant. The document makes no reference to any principle of peaceful 
coexistence but instead speaks repeatedly of the ``liberation'' of the 
entire territory of the former British Mandate. It affirms ``armed 
struggle'' as the strategy for this ``liberation'' and speaks of a 
``national duty to repulse the Zionist, imperialist invasion from the 
Great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.''
  Adding to the law governing the release of taxpayer dollars to the 
PLO a clear statement of a congressional expectation that this 
genocidal tract will be changed sends a powerful message. I wish to 
make the point for the record, however, that if the PLO has still 
failed to act to change its charter, I will seriously consider asking 
the Senate to make such action by the PLO an explicit condition on 
Presidential authority to obligate funds appropriated for the benefit 
of the PLO.
  As we are all aware of the PLO's record of treachery and butchery--of 
Americans as well as Israelis and others--this amendment will help 
ensure that United States funds are not spent for the benefit of the 
PLO without real compliance with the terms of the peace accords.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, Senator Specter and I offered the 
pending amendment before the recess to ensure that taxpayer dollars 
would not be used to subsidize terrorists. I am pleased that we could 
work out an agreement for the committee to accept a modified version of 
this amendment. On June 15, I joined Senator Specter as the cochair of 
the bipartisan Peace Accord Monitoring Group. The group is committed to 
monitoring PLO compliance with last September's Peace Accords, and as 
part of this commitment, to making sure that the PLO complies fully 
with the accords before one dime of taxpayer money is sent to the West 
Bank or the Gaza Strip.
  Madam President, since the signing of the peace accords, the record 
of PLO compliance has been less than stellar. The PLO has neither 
foresworn terrorism nor submitted changes to its charter's call for the 
destruction of Israel. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to 
gloss over or simply ignore these and other violations of the accords.
  Madam President, I believe that the American taxpayer is already 
perplexed enough that his or her money is being sent to a group 
directly responsible for the murders of U.S. citizens. We do not need 
the State Department further adding to this confusion and disbelief by 
failing to ensure that the PLO reforms itself in return for these 
dollars. If the executive branch will not see that our taxes are well 
spent in this situation, then it is incumbent upon the Congress to 
guarantee compliance with the peace accords before the United States 
sends its support to an unreformed terrorist organization.
  This amendment would allow the President to obligate funds 
appropriated for the West Bank and Gaza only if he can certify PLO 
compliance with the accords. He could not waive compliance requirements 
by invoking the vague language of the ``national interest'' as would be 
allowed by the appropriations bill before us. In addition, the 
amendment would add a congressional expectation to the Peace 
Facilitation Act that as a condition for continued assistance the PLO 
amend its charter to delete its call for the destruction of Israel.
  Madam President, these safeguards are necessary to protect the 
taxpayer from unwittingly subsidizing terrorists. I personally am 
skeptical that the PLO will actually reform itself by renouncing 
terrorism and agreeing to peacefully coexist with Israel.
  Having been heartened by the ceremonies on the White House lawn this 
past September, I sincerely hope that this peace agreement will form 
the basis of a lasting peace in the Middle East. However, a lack of 
vigilance and a blank, unconditional check to the same organization 
that was connected to the attack on the Achille Lauro will not ensure 
or guarantee peace. Rather, turning a blind eye to a lack of compliance 
with the peace accords will in fact aid in the undermining of the peace 
process and make it even more likely that the PLO will not reform 
itself.
  Madam President, the American taxpayer is already skeptical of 
foreign aid in general, let alone giving money to terrorists. This 
amendment is a step to making sure that any aid to the PLO is tied to 
full compliance with the accords. I thank the chairman and ranking 
member for accepting this amendment to protect the taxpayer and 
appreciate their cooperation in this matter.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Spector's amendment that would condition American aid to the PLO upon a 
commitment by them to adhere to the Middle East Peace Agreement and to 
remove from its national covenant any reference to the destruction of 
Israel. I would like to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
offering this amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
  I feel that the PLO has a long way to go before it convinces this 
Senator that it is truly committed to peace with Israel. One need look 
no farther than today's New York Times, to see that Yasir Arafat 
himself tried to smuggle into Gaza, four known arch terrorists. One of 
these murderers, has been identified by Israel as being the mastermind 
of the Ma'alot school massacre in 1974, in which 22 Israeli school 
children were murdered.
  Madam President, if Yasir Arafat in fact did smuggle a man who 
murdered 22 schoolchildren into Gaza, then I have even less confidence 
in his commitment to peace then before.
  Let me just finish by saying that I feel that this is a worthwhile 
amendment and it will hopefully go some way towards ensuring greater 
compliance by the PLO with the recently signed peace agreements.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the New York Times article 
concerning this situation be included in the Record following the text 
of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 14, 1994]

              Isreal Bars Palestinian Officials From Gaza

                          (By Joel Greenberg)

       Gaza, July 13.--Israel barred new officials of the 
     Palestinian National Authority from entering Gaza and Jericho 
     today in a dispute over the arrival here of four P.L.O. men, 
     two of whom allegedly planned a 1974 attack on a school in 
     which 22 Israeli students were killed.
       The dispute strained the self-rule accord between Israel 
     and the Palestine Liberation Organization and highlighted a 
     lingering lack of trust. It also touched a raw nerve in 
     Israel, where the raid on the high school, in the northern 
     town of Maalot, is remembered as one of the most horrific 
     terrorist assaults.
       Though three of the four men had left Gaza for Egypt by the 
     end of the day, Israel said no new officials of the 
     Palestinian authority would be allowed into the self-rule 
     zones until the fourth man was sent back to Egypt.
       ``As long as all of the four who entered illegally are not 
     outside the area, no officials of the Palestinian National 
     Authority will be allowed to come in,'' said Obed Ben-Ami, a 
     spokesman for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
       Mr. Ben-Ami said the four, who had joined Yasir Arafat's 
     entourage when he returned to Gaza on Tuesday from Egypt, had 
     not been given permission to enter. Israel controls the 
     border crossing, and under its agreement with the P.L.O., it 
     mus approve the entry of Palestinian officials.
       Mr. Ben-Ami said two of the men had planned the Maalot 
     raid, in which three Palestinian gunmen took scores of 
     students hos-tage. When Israeli soldiers stormed the school, 
     the gunmen opened fire killing 22 students and wounding 
     dozens more. The gunmen also died in the assault.
       The alleged mastermind of the attack, who arrived today, 
     was Mamdouh Nofal, now a leader of the Palestinian Democratic 
     Federation, a P.L.O. group that strongly supports the accord 
     with Israel. With him were Mustafa Liftawi, the former head 
     of the P.L.O.'s Western Sector group, which had planned 
     dozens of attacks on Israel; Jihad Amarin, a member of the 
     same group, and Nihad Jayusi. Mr. Amarin was reportedly still 
     in Gaza tonight.
       Two rightist opposition parties submitted a no-confidence 
     motion in Parliament, saying the Government should have 
     arrested the men.
       Dr. Ahmad Tibi, an adviser to Mr. Arafat who mediated the 
     men's departure, said the Israeli objections had little 
     basis.
       ``The person responsible on behalf of the Palestinian 
     people for everything that was done in the Israeli-
     Palestinian conflict is Yasir Arafat, and this man shook 
     hands with Yitzhak Rabin,'' Dr. Tibi said in a radio 
     interview. ``With that we turned over a new leaf. The goal is 
     to overcome and forget the past. The people who carried out 
     these acts now support the peace process.''
       But Mr. Ben-Ami said the men posed a security risk. ``Mr. 
     Arafat committed himself to carry out the accord,'' he said. 
     ``It's not certain that other people who want to reach the 
     area are indeed coming in order to implement the agreement.''
       At the Allenby Bridge crossing into the West Bank, Israel 
     barred a group of 18 Democratic Federation members from 
     entering Jericho from Jordan. The party leader, Yasir Abed 
     Rabbo, who holds the information and culture portfolio in the 
     Palestinian authority, was also prevented from crossing from 
     Egypt into Gaza.


                    amendment no. 2282, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my 
amendment at the desk, No. 2282, and I send the modification to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The modification is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the Committee amendment, insert 
     the following:

     SEC.  . RESTRICTION ON U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICES U.S. OFFICIAL 
                   MEETINGS IN JERUSALEM.

       (1) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     may be obligated or expended to create in any part of 
     Jerusalem a new office of any department or agency of the 
     United States government for the purpose of conducting 
     official United States government business with the 
     Palestinian Authority over Gaza and Jericho or any successor 
     Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO 
     Declaration of Principles; and
       (2) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     may be obligated or expended for any officer of employee of 
     the United States government to meet in any part of Jerusalem 
     with any official of the Palestinian Authority over Gaza and 
     Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing entity 
     provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles for 
     the purpose of conducting official United States government 
     business with such Palestinian Authority.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be considered a second-degree amendment to the 
committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 2266.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2266, as Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending 
McConnell amendment for a number of reasons.
  This amendment is far more than simply an amendment that would 
require the President to report the pros and cons and whether something 
is feasible.
  This amendment would require a report to accomplish certain specific 
goals within 60 days.
  Goal No. 1, the President is told by this amendment that he must 
report to us as to the specific military, economic, and political 
standards that are required to gain admission to NATO on the part of 
all the partners that have signed the Partnership for Peace agreement.
  That language runs right smack against the NATO Charter which says 
that NATO will define criteria for membership. Not that the United 
States unilaterally will define the criteria for membership to NATO, 
but that the 16 NATO nations as equal NATO members will define who gets 
into NATO and who does not and what the criteria are.
  But what this amendment does is usurps that NATO authority which 
belongs to all the NATO members and says that the President of the 
United States shall submit a report to the three committees defining 
specific military, economic, and political standards required to gain 
admission to NATO.
  So the first reason that I believe this amendment should be defeated 
is because it takes unto ourselves a responsibility which belongs to us 
and our NATO partners now, and I think in doing so is going to create 
real mischief inside of NATO between ourselves and our partners.
  So problem one is that internally to NATO it creates a problem 
because what belongs to NATO now, which is the determination of the 
criteria of membership to NATO, which belongs to all of the NATO 
nations, is suddenly by this amendment told to be the responsibility 
just to the President of the United States to determine what the 
criteria are for membership to NATO.
  But it also creates a problem, I believe, between NATO and our new 
partners in Eastern Europe because it singles out certain countries for 
which the criteria will be specified, and leaves out more countries 
that have signed up as partners for peace in terms of what criteria 
will be available for them to become members of NATO.
  I happen to be one who has believed over the past few months that the 
Partnership for Peace has moved this process forward. I also believe, 
and I think I may share this actually with my friend from Kentucky, 
that we should try to push the process of becoming partners and 
establishing criteria faster. In fact, I have said so publicly, that we 
should try to get that criteria established so that countries that have 
signed the Partnership agreement will know what that criteria is.
  I have also stated that I believe that when those countries do become 
members of NATO, that it would be useful to have a special relationship 
established between NATO and Russia.
  But in any event, this goes way beyond that. This amendment does not 
just require the President to establish criteria for all partners. It 
singles out certain partners and says that just for those partners the 
President must establish criteria, thereby drawing new lines in Europe. 
We are drawing the lines under this amendment. It is not the criteria 
which will determine which states will be able to join and which states 
will not. But this amendment singles out certain states for which 
specific criteria must be designed, and leaving out a whole host of 
other states, including some good allies of ours, like Sweden and 
Finland that are left out of this list, by the way.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I pose a brief observation and question to 
my friend from Michigan.
  I read this, and I have not heard the explanation of the Senator from 
Kentucky of what perhaps the answer to this.
  But the part of this resolution that involves me is section (b), and 
perhaps there are changes in language where it could be worked on.
  I think I understand where the Senator is coming from and I 
understand that we want to begin to have interoperability, or work 
toward interoperability, with Poland, Hungary, the Czechs, and others. 
I think with the Senator from Michigan we are not ready to narrow down 
that list yet but NATO will have to make that decision.
  But this paragraph (b) says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 120 days after 
     enactment of this act, excess defense articles made available 
     under section 516 and section 519 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 shall be provided to carry out the measures 
     identified in subsection (a) with regard to military 
     interoperability.

  Section (a) says: ``Provided such report shall include an assessment 
of measures which would be necessary to guarantee'' that armed services 
to these seven countries ``are capable of military interoperability 
with NATO and fulfilling other member responsibility.''
  When you use the word ``guarantee'' and basically mandate the turning 
over of defense articles, without regard to cost, without regard to 
transportation, without regard to any kind of preliminary assessment of 
need, it seems to me we are mandating for these countries that are in 
the Partnership for Peace what we never achieved for NATO. We do not 
have complete interoperability, unfortunately, in many aspects, of 
military equipment with our own allies.
  We have been basically prepared to defend Western Europe in 
partnership for the last 40 years. As a matter of fact, as recently as 
the Grenada operation, we did not have interoperability within the Navy 
and Army within our own military services.
  We are talking here, in a floor amendment that cannot be amended, as 
I understand the procedure, we are talking about turning over excess 
defense articles that guarantee that interoperability and do it in 120 
days.
  I would say to my friend from Michigan, the way I read this 
amendment, it is mission impossible, if the words are to be taken as 
they are written. If they are not to be taken as they are written, then 
what we need really is an amendment here so that we basically get the 
information that the Senator from Kentucky seeks without imposing 
basically conditions that are impossible; meaning making the amendment 
really, I think, something that really cannot be supported on the floor 
in good conscience.
  So I hope the Senator from Kentucky will agree to work on his 
amendment and take out some of the language, like ``guaranteed'' and 
recognize that interoperability is a process that takes years and 
years, and not single out certain countries in the Partnership for 
Peace to the exclusion of all the others.
  I happen to think these are the ones that are more likely to move 
toward the front of the list, but I do not think we, on the floor of 
the Senate, should be making that decision tonight when NATO is going 
to make that decision.
  So I guess my questions to the Senator from Michigan is whether he 
agrees with these observations, particularly with regard to paragraph 
(b) on excess defense articles. And I guess my question to the Senator 
from Kentucky is, is he willing to work on this amendment so that we 
can get him this information without basically these exact words.
  I pose the first question to the Senator from Michigan. I know he has 
the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I respond by saying, I think the 
observations the Senator from Georgia has made as to (b) and (a) are 
right on point.
  It is not just (b), which the Senator has focused on, which does 
purport to mandate a transfer to comply with the guarantee in (a), but 
also the singling out provisions of (a) which the Senator from Georgia 
has pointed to as also being a problem.
  And I would like to see both those problems addressed in any 
modification of this amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I think 
this amendment could basically be modified in a way that would produce 
the information required here, but the way the amendment here now 
basically includes certain countries, it makes the Senate of the United 
States, at 6:30 at night, after seeing the amendment for just a few 
minutes, vote and make a decision about who is going to be out by 
implication and then, as the Senator has already heard, it requires the 
turning over of the equipment to guarantee a result which is usually, 
at best, a 10- or 15-year process, even among our own military 
services.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator asking me a question?
  Mr. NUNN. I guess the question is, Would the Senator be willing to 
modify his amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me respond to the observations by 
both the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Michigan.
  It seems to me this is a little like deja vu all over again. We have 
been visiting the issue on the floor of the Senate most of this year 
and I am sure, as members of the Armed Services Committee, you have 
been contemplating the future of NATO for some time now, particularly 
in the wake of the end of the cold war the difficulty maybe of 
determining what the mission may be for the future.
  I have had a number of exchanges with members of the State Department 
about the absence of criteria. There are none, as the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows. Not only are there no 
criteria, there is no interest in developing any that I am aware of.
  And I think an awful lot of other people, both in this country whose 
ancestors came from Eastern Europe and ambassadors of those countries, 
from whom I and others hear from on a weekly basis, cannot understand 
why there cannot be some established criteria so that any country that 
could reasonably aspire to be a member of NATO might be able to 
ascertain what the criteria might be.
  So the fundamental goal of this amendment was to ask the President to 
get serious about addressing that question,
  Nothing, I would say to my friend from Michigan, prohibits him from 
consulting with his allies in the process of doing that. That is not 
prohibited by implication.
  With regard to the excess defense articles transfer, the Senator from 
Georgia is the expert, but it is my understanding that those are 
transferred anyway. I mean, are not excess defense articles 
transferred? That happens. I do not know what the cost of that is to 
us, but they are usually given away, no matter what.
  And our feeling here is that even though it says ``shall,'' it does 
not really say when. Even though it says ``shall,'' it does not really 
specify exactly what time at which those articles would be transferred.
  My final observation is with regard to the listing of the seven 
countries.
  It would be perfectly all right with me to include every country in 
Eastern Europe. The reason I specified the seven is because those are 
the seven that most people seem to feel might likely be the first 
candidates for admission. But if we would like to widen the array of 
possibilities even further, I am sure that would be reassuring to other 
Eastern European countries who might aspire someday to be part of the 
NATO umbrella.
  So those are just some random observations to the comments of the 
Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could quickly respond, I think it would be helpful, 
for instance, to urge the President to propose criteria to NATO for 
admission of all partners, and then which partners can meet the 
criteria, would meet the criteria. I think it would be useful to urge 
the President to try to recommend those criteria within a fixed period 
of time.
  But that is very different from this, which is a requirement that the 
President set specific criteria for certain countries.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, the President does not want 
to do that. I wish he did. I have asked the question numerous times. 
They do not want to establish criteria for admission to NATO. They want 
to have some Catch-22 situation where nobody can ever ascertain the 
answer to the question. I do not understand it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Again, the resolution of my friend from Kentucky goes way 
beyond that. You are talking about specific criteria for specific 
countries you listed, not criteria we are urging the President to 
propose to NATO for all countries. That is very different. NATO 
establishes the criteria, not us.
  I think my friend from Georgia wanted to intervene.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator from Michigan would be prepared to 
support my amendment if I broadened it and did not specify which 
country, that is a change this Senator would be willing to make.
  Mr. LEVIN. There are a number of changes I would like to suggest.
  We ought to change the excess equipment and whose responsibility is 
it to guarantee interoperability. Is that the responsibility of the 
United States of America or is that the responsibility of other 
nations?
  I would suggest a number of changes here would make this amendment 
acceptable, at least to me. One of them would be that it is the 
Senate's desire, sense of the Senate, however we phrase it, that the 
President, within a reasonable amount of time, determine what criteria 
for membership to NATO he will recommend to NATO for all partners. That 
would be one of the changes that I would recommend, so that whatever 
partner met those criteria would in fact be eligible for admission to 
NATO as a recommendation of the President to NATO, not a unilateral 
determination by this President as to who is going to be allowed to 
come into NATO and who is not.
  And the other part is the part that the Senator from Georgia spent 
some time relative to, and that has to do with the equipment and whose 
responsibility it is to assure interoperability.
  We cannot guarantee interoperability, so changes in the language 
relative to section (b) I think would also make this amendment much 
more acceptable, at least to me.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say I am not interested in making it into a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Of course, the Senator from Michigan 
can feel free to vote against this and urge others to do so, as I 
gather he is prepared to do. With regard to some of the other 
suggestions, I am perfectly willing to discuss them with him. But I am 
not interested in turning it into pap. The Senator from Michigan can 
feel free to oppose. That is what we do frequently around here. But 
with regard to some of the other suggestions, I am certainly open to 
expanding the membership opportunities to a greater number of 
frustrated Eastern European countries. That would be a perfectly all 
right with me. So that is one we can work on right there.
  And with regard to the interoperability problem, that is something we 
can discuss, too. So I would be happy to move on to other amendments, 
and maybe we could have some discussion of this and see if it is not 
possible to reach some kind of accommodation.
  Mr. President, maybe we can move on and deal with some other 
amendments, and let me talk to the Senator from Michigan and see if 
there is some chance of a meeting of the minds here, although we tried 
this before on a similar issue on a previous bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thought we succeeded, as a matter of fact.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Sort of.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have some very real problems with the 
amendment pending. Rather than to prolong the debate, they are the same 
problems the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Georgia have 
raised.
  I think we are talking about doing in 3 or 4 months by legislative 
fiat, something that is going to require some very extensive work at 
the diplomatic level, certainly at the military level, in trying to 
carry this out. I do not think we 100 Members of the U.S. Senate can, 
by some kind of legislative fiat, do what is probably going to take 
hundreds and hundreds of extremely experienced men and women in the 
United States and in these other countries to try to work out. And even 
then, they will not be able to do all the things within the 
interoperability and other issues raised here.
  I discussed here earlier our own invasion in Grenada, where our ships 
could not talk to each other, the Navy could not talk to the Army, the 
Army could not talk to the Air Force, our intelligence people in 
Washington could not talk to intelligence people on the ground in 
Grenada, and so on. You just cannot do these things overnight.
  But it would be helpful, and I certainly would have no objection, if 
the proponents of the legislation and the opponents wanted to set it 
aside without losing any of the rights the Senator from Kentucky would 
have, set it aside temporarily and go on to something else. I am stuck 
here all night with this thing anyway, so I am happy to do whatever 
might move the thing along. We probably have at least another 6 or 7 
hours of work this evening, to say nothing about what might happen 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We can argue about interoperability. But the issue 
here is criteria for admission to NATO, whether NATO will now, or ever, 
be extended to include the countries of Eastern Europe, which have 
recently been occupied--for 50 years--by the former Soviet Union. So I 
am perfectly happy to discuss with the Senator from Michigan some of 
the details of this. But let us not get too hung up on the fine points. 
The principle is, are there going to be criteria for admission to NATO? 
My fear is the administration prefers no criteria at all.
  Are there going to be criteria for admission to NATO and are we going 
to help countries meet those reasonable criteria and thereby expand the 
NATO umbrella into Eastern Europe? That is the fundamental question.
  So I will be happy to have some discussions with my friend from 
Michigan, as we have previously, on this issue, and see if we cannot 
reach some meeting of the minds.
  Otherwise, what I suggest to the Senator from Michigan is simply vote 
against the amendment. That is the way we decide things around here. We 
do not need to hold up the Senate. Let us just have a vote and then 
move on to the next amendment because I, like my friend and colleague 
from Vermont, am going to be here until the end of the evening anyway.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, why do we not urge someone else to process 
an amendment, and I will huddle with my friend from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is another more substantive issue 
though, of course. And that is, this is an amendment I certainly saw 
just within the past couple of hours. It asks, on an Appropriations 
Committee bill, appropriations for foreign operations to undertake 
something and to make a conclusion about something that could require a 
great deal of debate and thought by both the Armed Services Committee 
and the Foreign Relations Committee. This is a matter of very great 
significance.
  To handle it simply as an amendment--technically, as the Senator from 
Kentucky knows, an amendment that is not even within the Senate Rules 
because it is legislation on appropriations; that is probably not the 
first time that has happened, but it is legislation on appropriations 
of a major nature. For us to go forward with it when it is something 
that should be a matter, not only within the Congress but within our 
own administration, for some significant debate--I do not think the 
Senate has before it enough information to be prepared to take a step 
of this nature, nor could I imagine us ever being able to complete--by 
complete I mean sign into law--a foreign aid bill that had this with 
it. Those are my views and the views of only one Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I do not believe this is the only 
amendment on the NATO issue we are going to have on this bill. In order 
to facilitate this one, might I suggest we go ahead and have a vote at 
7? It gives 15 minutes for the Senator from Michigan and myself to see 
if we can work this out. If not, maybe he will have the votes and the 
amendment will be defeated.
  But rather than hold the Senate up, why do we not go ahead and 
dispose of this amendment? The chairman and I have been urging people 
to offer amendments. I have offered mine and I would like to get it 
disposed of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think there are a number of Senators 
interested in looking at the language of this, because this goes way 
beyond the question of whether or not criteria are going to be 
established for admission to NATO. I happen to favor the establishment 
of criteria for admission to NATO. I favor that.
  This amendment says the President will tell us what those criteria 
will be for NATO, not that NATO will establish the criteria. This 
amendment says the President of one out of 16 nations belonging to NATO 
will take unto ourselves that determination. That is going to fracture 
NATO and weaken NATO instead of strengthening it. This amendment also, 
then, talks about an assessment of what is necessary to guarantee 
interoperability--to guarantee interoperability--something which we 
have been unable to achieve with our NATO allies, as the Senator from 
Georgia points out, much less with the newcomers which we hope will 
join NATO.
  And then paragraph (b) talks about implementing that guarantee in 
subsection (a) through the transfer of American property to these new 
nations. So there are a lot of problems with section (a). It draws new 
lines. We pick out the countries that we say specific criteria should 
be adopted for.
  I favor criteria. But I also favor any country that can meet those 
criteria being admitted into NATO. I do not favor us picking and 
choosing the countries on the floor of the Senate. I favor the criteria 
being established by NATO--not by us unilaterally--and then every 
Partner for Peace, many more than the number that have been identified 
in this amendment, any Partner for Peace that can meet those criteria 
ought to be allowed into NATO and we should not draw the line here and 
say one country is in because here are the specific criteria; another 
country does not get specific criteria.
  There are some pretty good allies and friends of ours who are left 
out of this amendment. I think it is a divisive amendment. It will 
weaken NATO, and it will hurt our chances to strengthen and broaden 
NATO. I think it is going to take some time to modify it. I am 
perfectly happy to sit down with my friend from Kentucky to try to do 
so, but I caution there are a lot of other Senators that I think have 
some feelings on this who might want to participate in those 
discussions relative to the language that would go into the final 
amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at the risk of being redundant, several 
of the things the Senator from Michigan has suggested I am open to 
discussing. But I would like to move forward. We are all interested in 
finishing the bill. I will be happy to discuss it with him, or we can 
just go to a vote, if he is ready to vote.
  I do not know if anybody else is here to speak on this. If they are 
not here to speak, maybe one way to resolve it is simply go to a vote. 
The Senator may well prevail, and then we will be through with this 
amendment and move on to others.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Vermont withhold his 
request?
  Mr. LEAHY. I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there are several problems with this 
amendment. First, it puts the United States in the position of 
guaranteeing that certain Central European countries' forces are 
interoperable with NATO. It mandates that the President report on what 
would be necessary to guarantee interoperability, and it then instructs 
him to provide excess defense articles necessary to make those forces 
interoperable. I do not see how we can ask the President to provide 
those guarantees. That is not the sole responsibility of the United 
States.
  Second, the amendment singles out certain countries, which I believe 
draws dangerous new lines in Europe. It sets a dangerous precedent by 
specifically naming some countries and not others.
  Third, I am concerned by the breadth of this amendment. Namely, 
paragraph (b) would require the President to provide Poland, Hungary, 
the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the Baltic countries whatever excess 
defense articles are necessary to make their forces interoperable with 
NATO.
  At this point, we do not know what is required to make those 
countries' forces interoperable. Accordingly, we are setting ourselves 
up to provide potentially limitless excess defense articles. This is 
far too open-ended.
  What would happen if the President wanted to provide excess defense 
articles to other friends and allies other than those named in this 
amendment? If this amendment is adopted, I am concerned that the 
President's hands will be tied. He will have to provide excess defense 
articles to those Eastern European nations--perhaps to the detriment of 
our other friends and allies.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the only thing we can do to get 
this decided is to move to table, which I am about to do. I think the 
Senator from Kentucky has nothing further.
  Mr. McCONNELL. No, Mr. President, I think it is a good idea.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to table and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 2266, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], and 
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is 
absent on official business.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boren
     Riegle
     Wallop
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2266), as 
modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senators have been asking what is going 
to be the order. I know the Senator from North Carolina had asked prior 
to this vote if he might be recognized for an amendment, unless there 
was a Democrat Senator seeking recognition. That is the normal practice 
of going from side to side, the last amendment being for the Republican 
side, the next for the Democratic side.
  If there is not a Democrat seeking recognition to propose an 
amendment, we then would go to the Senator from North Carolina. But it 
would be my hope to start shortening the time on amendments to keep the 
votes going so we might have made good progress by midnight or 1 
o'clock or so.


                           Amendment No. 2294

(Purpose: To delete funding for parliamentary training and democracy in 
                    the People's Republic of China)

  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I have an amendment that I would like to offer at this 
point. If I understand the procedure set out by the distinguished floor 
manager, the time is now ripe to offer an amendment on the Democratic 
side. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes. Madam President, I answer my friend from Arkansas 
this way. There is no unanimous consent. But it has been the usual 
agreement of comity going from side to side. The Senator from North 
Carolina is not on the floor right now, but I can represent that he had 
said earlier that if there was no Democrat seeking recognition, he 
asked to be recognized next.
  There is now one seeking recognition. So it is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  It is in order for the Senator to do that at this time. That is now 
the pending question.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment numbered 2294.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask that the amendment be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Dorgan, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 2294.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the pending committee amendment add the 
     following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds appropriated under this Act shall be available to 
     support parliamentary training and democracy programs in the 
     People's Republic of China.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President----
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. Would the Senator 
be kind enough to advise the Senate as to whether or not a rollcall 
vote is required, and how much time might be consumed on debate?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I say to the Senator from Virginia, my guess is that a 
rollcall vote will be required. I would defer to the Senator from 
Kentucky on that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to the Chair, there certainly will be a 
rollcall vote required. We could have a relatively short time for 
debate.
  Mr. WARNER. Did the Senator give a time limit?
  Mr. McCONNELL. As far as I am concerned, 15 minutes on this side is 
enough.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So 30 minutes equally divided is agreeable to me.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I will 
yield the manager's time on this side to the Senator from Arkansas 
under his control.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator from Vermont yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator so request that there be 30 
minutes for each side, to be equally divided?
  Mr. BUMPERS. No. The request was for 30 minutes equally divided, 15 
minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator from Arkansas will yield, considering 
those of us who want to see our visiting daughters and granddaughters, 
I wonder if it is possible to have votes stacked so that we can have a 
window?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask my cosponsors, Senator Brown and Senator 
Dorgan, if they have any objection to stacking this vote. Does the 
Senator from Colorado have any objection to that?
  Mr. BROWN. I have no objection.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I want the Senator from Louisiana to have the 
opportunity to visit his granddaughter. That is much more important 
than anything we will do here tonight.
  Mr. LEAHY. Perhaps we can leave it this way, and I ask unanimous 
consent that what I am saying not come out of the time of either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what I will do is this: . During this 
debate, and prior to the time of the vote, I will try to make sure 
there is another vote coming up that is also going to have a time 
agreement, so we can put the two together. But I would not agree to 
start stacking until that time. I tell my friend from Louisiana that I 
know the situation he is in. I have been there many times myself. I 
would like to get two or three votes so we do not end up with a 2-hour 
quorum call.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Do I understand the Senator to say he is, at the present 
time, objecting to stacking the votes?
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is, but I suspect that by the time we are 
going to get done, we are going to be able to do that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. As I understand the situation, Madam President, there 
are 30 minutes equally divided, 15 minutes on a side, and the vote is 
not yet ordered to be stacked with other votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me read to you the language of the bill I object to:

       Provided further that of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading ``Agency for International Development'' not less 
     than $600,000 shall be available to support parliamentary 
     training and democracy programs in the People's Republic of 
     China.

  That is almost an oxymoron, to talk about democracy and the People's 
Republic of China. And the thing that makes it even more offensive, 
besides being an oxymoron, is the fact that $600,000 would not be 
enough to transport the people to China and pay their hotel bill, to 
teach the Chinese parliamentary procedure and give them democracy 
programs, even if they wanted them.
  Madam President, we are spending $13 billion in the very bill we are 
debating at this moment, trying to win friends around the world with 
money. We are parcelling out $13 billion to countries all over the 
globe, hoping that when push comes to shove, they will remember who 
their friends were, and they will be on our side in any controversy 
that might arise in their region of the world.
  Why, out of this $13 billion, would we set aside $600,000 to teach 
China, one of the last two or three autocratic, tyrannical, Communist 
governments--why would we spend $600,000 which, admittedly, is just a 
pittance, on such a country which could not possibly amount to a hill 
of beans.
  Madam President, China has a $10 billion to $15 billion trade deficit 
against this Nation, and we debate constantly here about prison labor 
and human rights violations and the autocracy that exists in China, 
which is still a hard-line Communist nation.
  Not only are we spending $13 billion in this bill, this afternoon in 
Appropriations we appropriated $35 million to the National Endowment 
for Democracy. And the National Endowment for Democracy is supposed to 
do exactly what this $600,000 is designed to do--teach people why 
democracy is superior to other systems.
  The distinguished Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona 
very thoughtfully offered an amendment to this, to strike a provision 
which was in the original bill that said this money would go to two of 
the four core grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy, namely, 
the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican 
Institute. Madam President, would you like to know who that is? That is 
the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. They are two of the 
biggest grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy. And until the 
Senator from Kentucky struck that from the bill, it provided that this 
$600,000 would go to them.
  I am very pleased that he struck that, in case this amendment fails. 
But his amendment also said this will be granted to some 
nongovernmental group to go to China to teach China democracy and 
parliamentary training.
  Madam President, China has 1.2 billion people. You tell me what you 
think $600,000 is going to do to promote democracy in China. It is not 
a lot of money, Madam President. It is more than most people in this 
body pay in income taxes each year. And even though it is a small 
amount, we ought not to be wasting it on something like that.
  The Agency for International Development has serious challenges. 
There are other earmarks in this bill, and I compliment the Senator 
from Vermont and the Senator from Kentucky on some of the other 
earmarks in here. They are for health items, and they are for things 
people really need. I am offering this amendment, and I hate to take up 
the Senate's time for a mere $600,000, but it is such a sheer utter 
waste, I could not resist it.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado. I would like to 
announce that Senator Bryan of Nevada and Senator Feingold of 
Wisconsin, as well as the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from 
North Dakota, have cosponsored this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I will not take all 5 minutes, but I want 
to commend the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for bringing this 
matter forth and having the courage to speak out.
  This is a pretty straightforward proposition. We have the leaders of 
our parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and other 
big interest groups who found out a way to tap the Government till. By 
getting together, they figured out that they can divide the money from 
the U.S. Treasury.
  Is it the best way of spending the taxpayers' money; that is, giving 
it to big special-interest groups when they agree? I do not think so. 
We have had talks about this in the past. One of the problems with this 
is that this money gets awarded in other areas without competitive 
bidding.
  Frankly, some of the money ends up being used by both parties to 
support people who no longer have a job in Government, and my 
impression at least is that some of the people are committed and 
dedicated and do a wonderful job on these projects and some of them 
could not get a job anywhere else.
  The simple fact is if we are going to be careful in using the 
taxpayers' money, it ought to go through a regular procedure with AID 
or whatever other program you want to do. But what this is is a 
procedure of having finally agreed on the maximum amount we are going 
to give to the political parties--something I think everybody in this 
Chamber ought to be a little hesitant about--having finally agreed on 
that maximum limit, then someone is figuring out a new way to get 
around the limit. That is what this is. This is the way to get around 
the limit. This is the way to say, yes, we agreed on the limit as to 
how much we were going to hand out to political parties. By the way, we 
figured out a nice project. Indeed, this is. It has a wonderful 
purpose, and we are going to slip in a little provision in the process 
to give more money to them.
  Madam President, this is not right. This is a way around reasonable 
limits. This is a way around reasonable controls. This is a way around 
a proper approach to spending the money.
  The last thing in the world either the Democratic Party or the 
Republican Party needs is a bunch of party insiders deciding and 
dividing the public treasury without reasonable scrutiny, without fair 
controls, and without insisting on proper accounting for the money.
  After having fought this through about the limit that they should 
receive, this is a way around those limits. I think it is wrong. I 
think it is a mistake. And frankly, I think the members of the 
Democratic Party and Republican Party who take advantage of their 
position to divide up the public treasury in this manner ought to be 
ashamed of themselves.
  I have said that to the Republican Party leadership. I know others 
have said that to the Democratic Party leadership. But to take 
advantage of your power because you control the party, to take money 
out of the treasury is just plain wrong, and there ought to be a limit 
to it.
  I commend the Senator from Arkansas for having the courage to stand 
up and try to insist that at least some limit stands on how much they 
take away from the taxpayers of this country.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, it will be deducted equally from both sides.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, if no one wants to speak further on this, 
I wonder if all time could be yielded back. I know Senator Brown has 
been waiting to offer an amendment that he and I are cosponsoring along 
with many other Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, in answer to my friend from Illinois, 
I think the time is going to be used. There are a couple of speakers in 
opposition to the Bumpers amendment. Senator Simon and Senator Brown 
will be next in line.
  Mr. BROWN. If the Senator will yield, would it be all right if 
Senator Simon spoke with regard to the upcoming amendment until someone 
else arrives to speak on the pending amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, under the agreement, the time 
reserved prior to the vote on the Bumpers amendment is to discuss the 
Bumpers amendment, and we will be doing that shortly.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I did not understand what the Senator 
from Kentucky just said.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding under the agreement the 30 
minutes referred to is for discussion of the Bumpers amendment. The 
Senator from Arkansas has been discussing it. The Senator from Colorado 
has been discussing it. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from 
Kentucky are about to discuss it.
  So the answer to my friend from Illinois is that we will be 
discussing the Bumpers amendment during the time allotted for that 
shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I note the presence of the Senator from 
Vermont here. If he wishes to speak on this, I certainly will yield. If 
he does not, I ask unanimous consent that this be temporarily set 
aside, with everyone keeping their time, so that I could speak on the 
Brown amendment for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I object.
  I say I want the Senator from Illinois to have time to speak on this 
amendment that is pending at this time. I have one other speaker who 
wishes to be heard.
  I would like to yield such time to the Senator from North Dakota as 
he may wish to use within the limits of the remaining time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 6 minutes and 12 
seconds remaining, which is yielded to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me retract that, Madam President. I yield 4 minutes 
to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, thank you very much.
  I thank the Senator from Arkansas. The Senator does a service to this 
Senate by offering this amendment, which would strike $600,000 of 
funding for parliamentary training in mainland China.
  Simply, this is a waste of money. It is only $600,000, but it is 
still $600,000. As the fellow said as he spit in the ocean, every 
little bit helps. And $600,000 is a lot of money to some folks, and we 
ought not waste it.
  The issue here, as Senator Bumpers has said, is giving $600,000 to 
the two political parties, in effect, and saying go to China and teach 
them parliamentary training and democracy programs. They need to learn 
about parliamentary training and democracy programs.
  With due respect, the issue is not learning in China. The issue is 
yearning. They yearn for freedom and they yearn for democracy.
  Have we forgotten that those students in Tiananmen Square built a 
papier-mache Statue of Liberty and then were slaughtered? Have we 
forgotten that shortly after that Bush administration officials were 
over there drinking wine with Chinese leaders?
  China knows about democracy. That is what Tianamen Square was all 
about. They fully know about democracy. We do not have to spend 
$600,000 flying people from the Democratic and Republican parties over 
there to give seminars. What a waste of money.
  My Lord, we have so many needs and so many problems in this country, 
and we are going to spend $600,000 on this program? This funding ought 
not to have been in this bill in the first place.
  When the Senator from Arkansas offered this amendment this year, I 
told him at the time it was too timid. He and I would have liked to 
repeal the whole National Endowment for Democracy program. What a waste 
of millions of dollars.
  But this $600,000 is in this bill, and in my judgment, it is a waste 
of money. Let us dump it. Let us adopt this amendment and demonstrate 
that we understand the difference between what is needed and what is 
not, what works and what is waste.
  What would Harry and Louise think of this, for God's sake, sitting on 
the couch, talking about what Government is doing?
  ``Harry, did you hear what they are going to do next? They are going 
to send people to China to teach democracy.'' And Harry would say, 
``Gee. Don't they know about democracy? They were over there fighting 
and dying for it.''
  China's knowledge of and desire for democracy is clear and obvious. 
To spend $600,000 to try to spur China's desire for democracy is not 
only ridiculous, it is insulting.
  Let us do the right thing. Let us pass this amendment. Just start 1 
inch down the road, and hopefully down the road a way we will repeal 
the National Endowment for Democracy for good and stop wasting the 
taxpayers' money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont 30 
seconds. I yield him a minute. He cannot speak for only 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I think the Senator from Arkansas is 
right and the Senator from North Dakota is right. I will vote for his 
amendment. In fact, I will join in doing away with the National 
Endowment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, never has so little money generated 
such elaborate rhetoric.
  Let me just say that this vote is about democracy in China. It is 
whether you support giving reformers in China a chance or not. It is a 
vote to provide aid to organizations which are working with legislators 
working with democratic activists in China, and there are democratic 
activists in China.
  No funds; I repeat, no funds. This debate reminds me of the big 
shootout we had over the National Endowment for Democracy recently. But 
I want to say, this is not about the NED. I know there are heated 
passions here that tend to come to the fore when we talk about the NED.
  The NED has always prevailed in the Senate, but this is not about 
that. I kind of wish it were, because I know what the outcome of the 
votes would be if it were about NED. The Senator from Arkansas would 
probably be defeated.
  But there are not any funds directed to either the International 
Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, or any other 
organization, frankly. The provision in the bill specifically says that 
the funds should be available on a competitive basis. Just on a 
competitive basis.
  Among the organizations that might qualify for this would be the Ford 
Foundation, or the AFL-CIO, or maybe even the University of Arkansas.
  So I do not think, to be perfectly frank with you, this deserves an 
extensive debate. But it seems to me that if you would concede there 
are some democratic reformers active in China--and I know there are--
and that this might be a way to provide some organizations a chance to 
help them move forward, this should not be all that controversial.
  But, the Senate can work its will on it. It seems to me this is 
largely about a democracy in China.
  The 10 most wanted Tiananmen Square dissidents who escaped to the 
U.S. strongly support this particular provision of the bill. Let me 
repeat, for those of you who think this may be a rerun of MFN, the 10 
most wanted Tiananmen Square dissidents who escaped to the U.S. 
strongly support this provision.
  So let us not make this into, what we used to say in law school, a 
Federal case. It is an important provision to those dissidents who had 
the courage to stand up to the government in Tiananmen Square.
  Beyond that, Madam President, I rest my case. I thought the Senator 
from Arizona was going to speak to this amendment, but he is not here 
yet.
  That basically concludes my observations. I hope the Bumpers 
amendment will be defeated. But I am sure China will move forward with 
or without it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall 
vote on this amendment, which would take place at the expiration of the 
time under the unanimous-consent agreement, occur immediately following 
the next rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being none, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] and the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back such time 
as I have. I just want to make one closing point.
  As they say, $600,000 is not much money. But it is too much to waste. 
If we were really serious about trying to help China democratize, $600 
million would be a more appropriate figure. You might accomplish 
something with that.
  But you will not accomplish anything with $600 million, $60 million, 
$6 million, $600,000 trying to teach democracy to the same people who 
slaughtered young innocent students in Tiananmen Square because they 
wanted democracy.
  To follow up on what the Senator from North Dakota said on Harry and 
Louise, there has to be a better way. Why squander $600,000?
  Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me say, probably in conclusion, 
this is not about providing money for the National Endowment for 
Democracy. This is about earmarking some funds for organizations who 
are interested in promoting democracy in China to compete for.
  The 10 most wanted Tiananmen Square dissidents who managed to escape 
support this provision. This is not about MFN. This is not about the 
NED. This is a symbol for the 10 most wanted Tiananmen Square 
dissidents who managed to escape the country.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes and 9 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time, 
because I understand there might be at least one other speaker on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be set aside and the time reserved, and that I be able to 
speak for 3 minutes on the Brown amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
definitely will not object, but has the Brown amendment been offered?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is at the desk.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would only urge, while Senator Simon is speaking, that 
somebody could probably call the Senator from Colorado and they could 
bring up his amendment. If we could do that next, it would probably 
make some sense.
  I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Illinois calling up the 
Brown amendment?
  Mr. SIMON. I am not calling up the Brown amendment. I am just asking 
unanimous consent to speak on the Brown amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I think we all understand each other. 
The clock is not running on the Bumpers amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Madam President.


                           Amendment No. 2248

  Mr. SIMON. My colleague from Colorado has offered an amendment that 
is cosponsored by a great many on both sides and I hope can be accepted 
and I think should be noncontroversial that says the President may--and 
I underline ``may''--transfer excess defense articles under section 516 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or under the Arms Export Control 
Act to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Later, other nations 
could be added if other nations establish solid democracy.
  These three have led the way. And I am pleased to say that other 
nations in that area are moving in this direction. When others want to 
add other nations, I will probably support that when those nations 
appear to qualify.
  But it does seem to me that we ought to recognize that, to the extent 
that we can encourage security cover for these nations, it is 
desirable.
  For those who feel, and particularly some of my friends in the State 
Department feel, that this is an anti-Russian thing, not at all. The 
reality is, when the time comes when democracy is well-established in 
Russia, then Russia can become part of this whole alliance. In fact, 
the real military threat to Russia long term is not from Poland, not 
from Hungary, not the Czech Republic, but it comes from China.
  And so I think this amendment by my colleague from Colorado makes 
sense. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I hope it can be accepted 
without controversy by the Senate.
  Madam President, if no one desires to speak, I question the presence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?


                           Amendment No. 2294

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I ask the Senator from Kentucky if 
he will yield me some time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 10 minutes 57 
seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona 
however much time within that limit he may desire.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will ask another question of the 
Senator from Kentucky, who is the ranking member, in the absence of the 
other manager of the bill. I ask, first of all, did the committee 
propose this to be part of the bill? The funding?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yes, I say to my friend from Arizona, 
it did. The subcommittee did. It was subsequently approved by the full 
committee.
  We have been sort of kicking this around here on the floor. I do not 
want to represent the arguments of the other side, but I think 
underlying those arguments is the notion that there are no reformers in 
China. I know there clearly are. This rather small amount of money 
would be available on a competitive bid basis for organizations like 
the Ford Foundation or the AFL/CIO, or for that matter the University 
of Arkansas, to help with the development of democratic institutions 
within the country.
  The final observation I will make, that I did make earlier on the 
floor, is that the 10 most wanted Tiananmen dissidents who managed to 
get out of the country and are here in the United States strongly 
support this funding. So I am a little mystified, I would say to my 
friend from Arizona, how this has become a matter of such controversy.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the reason why I asked my colleague is 
because I think there is a little more to this than that. Here is 
$600,000 of a $14 billion piece of legislation that seems to have 
aroused all this. What we are really talking about is the National 
Endowment for Democracy, which the distinguished Senator from Kentucky 
knows, coincidentally, the cosponsors of this amendment have tried to 
kill several times. They got beat badly in the House the other night. 
They know they will get beat badly here. So we have to go through this 
exercise.
  Is it apparent to my friend from Kentucky that the Senator from 
Arkansas and the Senator from Colorado know better what is best for 
China? They are not, obviously, experts on China. They know better than 
General Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser; Larry Eagleburger, 
former Secretary of State; Jim Lilley, former Ambassador to China; Doug 
Paal, NSC's Director of Asian Affairs, and the agency's 10 most wanted. 
So they know much better than these individuals; is that not a correct 
assumption to make, if you support this amendment, I ask my friend from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will say the National Endowment for Democracy is not 
specified in here as a recipient of this money, but the debate did 
sound remarkably similar to the one we have had here on several 
occasions on which the Senator from Arizona and I had participated. I 
asked the staff here earlier if they could give me the outcome. Maybe 
the Senator has the outcome. The last time we had the NED battle here 
it was rather lopsided. The Senator from Arizona is certainly correct, 
it sounds quite similar.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Kentucky. Again, I am astounded at 
the knowledge of China and the situation there. Frankly, I am 
incredibly impressed by the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from 
Arkansas, especially. Frankly, their in-depth knowledge of China had 
somehow escaped me over the years. But it is clear to me they know more 
than Larry Eagleburger, General Scowcroft, Doug Paal, and the Chinese 
dissidents who fled to this country who believe they know what is best 
for their country. So I certainly hope my colleagues will take into 
consideration the different balance of views here.
  What this is, as my friend from Kentucky knows, is some way to get 
at, again, the National Endowment for Democracy, a debate we have had 
many times in the past and we will probably have in the future. All 
this malarkey about people who are involved in the National Endowment 
for Democracy, I have to say to my friend from Kentucky, I resent it, 
from the Senator from Colorado especially, who also knows better.
  The fact is, in the view of almost every unbiased expert, the 
National Endowment for Democracy has done some very important and 
credible things, which is why the last time the National Endowment for 
Democracy was attacked, literally every editorial page in America, 
conservative and liberal, took on the opponents by name. I have never 
seen such support from columnists, from David Broder to George Will, et 
cetera, et cetera.
  I do not want to waste the time of this body. We can decide. This 
body can decide very quickly. Shall we take the word of Gen. Brent 
Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser to the President; Larry 
Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Jim Lilley, former Ambassador 
to China; Doug Paal?
  Let me tell you, Madam President, what Chai Ling--I am sure that is a 
mispronunciation of his name--a 1989 Tiananmen student commander twice 
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, said: ``Unless China starts 
constitutional reforms, setting up its own checks and balances 
mechanism within its system, it is unrealistic to expect outside 
pressure to change the situation. After escaping from China and living 
in the U.S. and studying at Princeton University, I am more convinced 
than ever that China's future is through constitutional reform.''
  That is what this amount of money is for.
  I am sure Mr. Chai Ling, having been gone since 1989, is not as up to 
date as the Senator from Colorado nor the Senator from Arkansas.
  They are much more aware. In fact, they may even travel there in the 
meantime. Or Liu Binyan, who said:

       All people--

  Obviously with the exception of the Senator from Arkansas and the 
Senator from Colorado--

       All people concerned about China's future and 
     democratization have reached consensus that China's 
     transformation must be peaceful and gradual. During the 
     process of peaceful transformation, the most important thing 
     is to implement the constitution and gradually amend it. 
     Whether China avoids great turmoil depends on successfully 
     implementing gradual political reform.

  And another dissident says the same thing.
  It is clear here. And finally, Madam President, here we are--I feel 
like I am in a ludicrous position. I opposed an amendment prohibiting 
the President going into Haiti. I opposed an amendment tying the 
President's hands on Bosnia. I opposed amendments time after time that 
have prospectively prohibited the President from taking certain action. 
And here I am, again, opposing an amendment that says that the 
President cannot do something.
  It is a priority for AID, and I thought that those who opposed just 
recently the Dole Haiti amendment might not want to tie the President's 
hands in this instance.
  Madam President, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I thank you for 
your support. It is not that big a deal. If this body wants to kill 
this $600,000 because they feel that all these people are wrong, then 
so be it. But I do not think it deserves, frankly, a great deal more 
debate.
  I yield to my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to thank my friend from 
Arizona for his very persuasive observation. The last time we had this 
debate--the position the Senator from Arizona and I are advocating--on 
another matter, the outcome was 74-23.
  Even though this amendment does not specify any recipient agency--it 
could be the Ford Foundation or the AFL-CIO--I certainly share the 
Senator's view: Why are we here trying to knock out a relatively modest 
amount of money to try to help this vast country move in the direction 
we all hope it will go?
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for his fine remarks.
    
    
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, there is one more point I would like to 
make, and it needs to be on the record again.
  When I found out that this money was earmarked for the National 
Endowment for Democracy, I came down here with an amendment, which the 
distinguished managers of the bill were kind enough to accept, which 
removed that.
  This money, if it is appropriated, will go on a competitive basis 
conducted by the Agency for International Development.
  So I say to my friend from Kentucky, our attacks on the National 
Endowment for Democracy may be misguided because they may not get the 
money, depending on what AID decides.
  I reserve the remainder of the time of the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise simply----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired----
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think the case against the amendment has been 
adequately stated by the Senator from Arizona and, hopefully, by 
myself. I will be glad to give the Senator from Colorado my last 2 
minutes. Then we can move on to his next amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. I will not take 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I simply want the Record to indicate the 
way the Senator from Arizona has summarized the issue, and the impact 
of his amendment, I believe, is accurate. I believe the McCain 
amendment significantly improved the measure that was in the bill.
  I think the Senator is to be praised for that. I certainly think that 
his efforts made a significant improvement in the measure and one that 
I think, whether this particular amendment is adopted or not, will have 
been a help. I yield back any remaining time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). All time has expired. The 
Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, absent the unanimous-consent agreement 
that we entered into earlier, there would be a rollcall vote now. I see 
the Senator from Colorado on the floor. He also has an amendment which 
I believe he is going to bring up. There may be someone to speak on 
this side. I would like to know if perhaps we can get a time agreement 
on that, and then if there is going to be a rollcall vote on that, then 
we would know when the time would be, because we would have two 
rollcall votes together, and that is probably about as late as I would 
want to go before we had some more rollcall votes because I find as we 
have the rollcall votes, a lot of the Senators who cannot seem to be 
reached by phone to work out these time agreements are suddenly on the 
floor.
  Mr. BROWN. If the chairman will yield, I know the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, has an 
interest in the Brown-Simon amendment. I know he will want to be heard 
on it. I offer to the chairman that I will be happy to agree to 
whatever time limit the Senator from Rhode Island would wish to place 
on the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Let us do this. Why do we not set 1 hour evenly divided, 
if that would be OK with the Senator from Colorado, and if we do not 
need the time, we can always yield it back.
  Mr. BROWN. For my purposes, I would be happy to agree with that. I 
believe it is possible to conclude it more promptly than that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Are we now on the 
Brown amendment? I ask unanimous consent that when the Brown amendment 
is brought up--and I understand from the Senator from Colorado he is 
about to do that momentarily--that when it is brought up, that there 
would be 1 hour evenly divided in the usual fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object. I ask the Senator from 
Vermont, following that would he anticipate two rollcall votes?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is correct, we 
would. I would also note that I am doing this only because it would 
take longer to go on the hot line to find out who wants to speak. I 
hope on this side we will be yielding back a considerable amount of 
that time. But then there would be a vote--let me state it this way.
  I ask unanimous consent that we now go to the Brown amendment; that 
there be 1 hour evenly divided in the usual fashion; at the end of that 
hour, there be a vote on, or in relation to, the Brown amendment, with 
no second-degree amendment to it in order; and that upon the completion 
of that vote, whatever it is--rollcall or otherwise--that we then 
immediately vote on the Bumpers amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I feel the need to have a short quorum call. I want to 
discuss it.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I have no objection to the request.
  Mr. LEAHY. I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request of the Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. COHEN. Reserving the right to object, is it clear that an hour 
must be consumed?
  Mr. LEAHY. No. Time could be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2248

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Brown amendment.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I believe we have called up for 
consideration amendment 2248, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Members be added as cosponsors: Senators Roth, Mikulski, 
Dole, Warner, Domenici, Lieberman, Helms, Pressler, Feingold, Nickles, 
McCain, and Simon as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Craig be added as a cosponsor, and Senator Cohen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this amendment is quite straightforward. 
It merely adds the authority for the President to extend to the 
countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary an ability to 
participate with our Defense Department as many other countries do. Let 
me be specific. Currently, we have the ability to transfer excess 
defense articles to other countries around the world. Those include, in 
addition to our NATO allies, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Oman, Bahrain, and 
Senegal. This amendment would add Hungary, Poland, and the Czech 
Republic to the existing list of countries. These three countries are 
anxious to participate with us. They are anxious to become part of 
NATO. They have democratized their nations. They are anxious to work 
with our military and they are anxious to stand among the countries 
that not only believe in democracy and freedom but are willing to 
defend it, and they seek an opportunity to have closer ties with the 
West.
  Members will ask whether or not the President should be authorized to 
put these three countries in the same category as Senegal or Oman. It 
is my belief that they more than qualify and should be included. It 
would also put the three countries in a list of countries that are 
authorized to receive leases and loans of major defense equipment. It 
would put them among nations with whom the United States maintains 
cooperative military airlift agreements. Let me emphasize, Madam 
President, this amendment does not require the President to take any of 
these actions. It leaves the final decision with the President.
  Why should the Senate support the NATO Participation Act of 1994? If 
I may, I would like to share with the body a letter that I received 
from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. His letter reads as 
follows.

       Thank you for bringing to my attention the Brown-Simon 
     ``NATO Participation Act of 1994'' and your plan to offer it 
     as an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations 
     bill.
       In my view, continuing security in Europe hinges upon a 
     stable NATO alliance open to early membership by countries 
     like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Ambiguous 
     western security arrangements for the heart of Europe will 
     not serve the cause of peace there. Rather they will generate 
     uncertainty and instability.
       The ``NATO Participation Act'' sends a strong indication of 
     the United States' support for Poland, Hungary and the Czech 
     Republic. By extending to these fledgling democracies some of 
     the most important security benefits that U.S. law extends to 
     existing NATO members, the Act will speed their transition 
     into NATO.

  Madam President, that is exactly the purpose of my amendment.
  Dr. Kissinger concludes:

       I strongly support the Brown-Simon amendment and urge your 
     colleagues of both parties to join in passing it at its 
     earliest opportunity.

  Madam President, this is not a partisan amendment. It is offered to 
the body with the leadership of Senator Simon, who has long been 
concerned about not only the plight of Poland but the plight of those 
in Central Europe, along with three other Democratic Senators who have 
been leaders in this particular area.
  I am particularly interested in the plight of Central Europe, Madam 
President, for this reason. The year before I was born, the world saw 
Poland disappear as it was engulfed by Germany and the Soviet Union. 
Many important historians looking back on those events cite the 
perception created by democracies of the world that they would not 
stand with Poland as the impetus behind the Nazi invasion. Because our 
support was ambiguous, because those of good faith who believe in 
democracy did not stand together, each country fell separately to the 
totalitarian aggressors.
  Imagine the millions of lives that could have been saved if 
democracies had stood up at the time Poland was threatened. Other 
Members will recall the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Then, the 
leadership of the West, hoping against hope, abandoned Czechoslovakia, 
believing this offering would satiate Hitler's appetite. It did not. 
Tragically, after swallowing up a portion of Czechoslovakia, the Nazi 
hunger remained. While the West stood silent, the Nazi hordes finished 
off the remainder of this once prosperous nation and proceeded on their 
path.
  Other Members will recall the valiant struggle of the Polish 
underground during World War II against the Nazi invaders. As the end 
neared, the Soviet Army asked these partisans to surrender and 
negotiate for control of the country, for the bringing of democracy and 
stabilization to Poland. The Polish underground leaders were reluctant 
to do so and only agreed to surrender to the Soviet authorities after 
the United States urged and assured them that they would be well 
treated and that they, indeed, would be a respected part of the 
leadership they sought to bring to their country.
  The tragedy of history is that those valiant leaders of the Polish 
underground were arrested, were imprisoned and eventually executed. The 
defenders of freedom and the defenders of the fight against the Nazis 
in Poland were executed. And what did the United States do? Tragically, 
little.
  I do not want, for this generation, for it to be said that we did not 
do what we could to make sure these same events do not happen again.
  Madam President, how can we look at the Czech Republic and not feel 
twangs of the heart. How can we not wonder if there was something the 
United States could have done at the time that would have stopped their 
misery and circumvented the cold war? How can we even think about 
Poland and wonder if we could not have done a better job to stand with 
the Polish people? How can we even think about preserving freedom in 
this world and not know that it is important for men and women who 
sincerely believe in freedom and democracy to stand together?
  Now, the facts are these, at least as this Member sees it. There are 
radical elements within Russia today that would like to reassert their 
control over Central Europe. Thankfully, thankfully, we believe the 
leadership of the country does not share that enthusiasm.
  Madam President, I believe that if we make our intentions with regard 
to Central Europe unclear, if we are unwilling to make it clear that 
they are part of the family of free nations, if we are unwilling to 
show that they have a right not only to protect freedom but to be part 
of the defense network that stands up for it, then I believe we send a 
signal that reasserting domination over the Central European powers is 
all right; that once again free men and women will stand idly by while 
their freedom and independence is crushed.

  Madam President, that would be a tragedy. This amendment will begin 
to make our intentions clear; namely, that we intend to take the issue 
off the table; that reasserting control over Poland, Hungary, or the 
Czech Republic will no longer be considered viable by anyone in Russia; 
that Russia will feel an obligation to respect the freedom and 
independence of these countries just as we feel an obligation to 
respect their freedom and independence.
  I offer this resolution only because the governments of those 
countries have expressed their interest in becoming part of NATO, not 
because we are pushing them to join. We should not do anything to 
jeopardize the hard won and cherished freedom that these countries now 
enjoy. By moving quickly, by holding out the hand of friendship and 
participation, we can short circuit those who would reassert domination 
over central Europe.
  Madam President, I ought to mention that, in addition to these three 
Republics, the Slovakians have indicated an interest in joining NATO 
and, as a matter of fact, would like to be included in this amendment. 
They are not included in this amendment, and my sense is that it is not 
appropriate to change the amendment at this time. But I must say my own 
feeling is that Slovakia should be considered as a candidate for NATO 
membership. I personally favor their inclusion, and I hope that at some 
time in the future, we can consider them and make our feelings known to 
the Senate.
  But my hope is also that we do not miss this opportunity to send a 
clear signal that we want Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary to 
enjoy the freedom and the independence that they sacrificed so much for 
and long for so greatly.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield such time as he may need to the 
Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague.
  Less than 2 weeks ago, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Defense 
Department authorization bill that addressed the issue of participation 
in allied defense cooperation. As I said at the time, we should 
encourage the President to use existing authorities to provide excess 
defense articles and other benefits to our friends particularly our 
friends participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace.
  I am concerned, however, by any attempt to draw unnecessary lines in 
a newly undivided Europe as the proposed amendment would do. The 
administration has worked very hard to be inclusive in developing 
NATO's Partnership for Peace. For example, Russia joined the 
Partnership with no special conditions--on the same terms as other 
countries. If we begin to differentiate now, we undermine the concept 
of a while and free Europe. We fought the cold war for a half century 
with hopes that one day, we could bring down the Iron Curtain that 
bifurcated Europe. Why on earth would we want to redraw lines that we 
struggled so hard to erase?
  The amendment before us specifically mentions Poland, Hungary, and 
the Czech Republic as countries that should be eligible to receive 
excess defense articles. I want to emphasize that those countries are 
already eligible for excess defense articles, and the President has, in 
fact, already offered Poland and Hungary excess equipment. Both 
countries, however, have declined the offer due to financial 
difficulties. I reiterate: the President has already tried to do what 
this amendment asks, but was turned down by the relevant countries.
  This amendment would also amend existing law to specifically mention 
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as eligible to receive other 
benefits such as communications support, leases and loans of defense 
equipment, and cooperative military airlift agreements. Again, under 
existing law, the President already has the authority to grant these 
benefits to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, as well as to other 
countries that he determines are appropriate.
  Madam President, I wish to stress that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic are all members of NATO's Partnership for Peace, and are 
extremely deserving of military cooperation and benefits. Indeed, they 
have been offered the type of assistance that this amendment would 
authorize. Accordingly, I believe this amendment is unnecessary and 
would serve only to draw new lines between our friends in Central and 
Eastern Europe, and would make a division rather than unification.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 26 minutes 24 
seconds. The Senator from Colorado has 19 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee has accurately advised the body that these 
countries are now able to receive some excess defense articles. I think 
it is fair to describe them as nonlethal items that can be shared with 
these countries.
  The amendment before us provides authorization. Let me emphasize that 
it is authorization; it is not a requirement. It is merely 
discretionary for the administration and provides authorization that 
extends not only to subsection (b) but also includes subsections (c) 
and (d).
  It merely adds options for the President that he does not now enjoy. 
It extends to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary the ability to 
participate in these programs, should the President decide.
  I think it is fair to describe the additional areas as ones that go 
beyond nonlethal equipment, ones that involve a broader range of 
military hardware capabilities. Let me emphasize how important this 
change is. It is important because these countries want to communicate 
with us, they want to develop joint procedures, they want to work with 
our personnel, and they want to learn from our personnel. The ability 
to work together in these areas expands their ability to become 
effective allies.
  Madam President, let me emphasize again what is important here. The 
NATO Participation Act goes far beyond simply the hardware which we 
might share, the joint exercises that we might perform, or the good 
will that might come from closer cooperation. What comes here, frankly, 
is a signal, a signal that we care about these countries, a signal that 
we want to be close to these countries, a signal that we understand 
that it is important that they remain free, a signal that we are not 
only interested in their freedom, but willing to work with them toward 
that future.
  Madam President, let me also emphasize how important it is right now. 
Right now, these countries are deciding what their future will be. If 
we turn our back on them, if we ignore them, if they gain the 
impression we do not care about their security, they will be forced to 
make other security arrangements.
  What a tragedy it would be if, when finally they have achieved their 
peace and freedom and independence, that we would treat them with 
disdain. Whether we realize it or not, our willingness or unwillingness 
to work with them is viewed as a strong sign of what their future will 
be. Will it be to the West or will it be to the East? Surely, it is in 
our country's interest to make sure that they receive a strong signal 
of our interest, our friendship, and our willingness to work with them.
  The Senate earlier tonight had gone on record in opposition to the 
McConnell amendment.
  The NATO Participation Act is a bit milder than the McConnell 
amendment. It has a number of cosponsors that did not support the 
McConnell amendment. While it is not as strong--at least in some ways--
as the McConnell amendment, it does send a positive signal. I think it 
would be a tragedy if what comes out of our deliberations tonight is a 
negative signal to those who seek our help and comradeship in 
preserving their freedom.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the analysis that I asked be 
prepared by the Congressional Research Service on this particular 
subject be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                      The Library of Congress,

                                    Washington, DC. June 28, 1994.
     SUBJECT: Current Statutory Authority for Certain Defense-
         Related Activities Involving Poland, Hungary, and the 
         Czech Republic

     TO: Hon. Hank Brown

     FROM: American Law Division

       This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of 
     whether the President currently has statutory authority to 
     undertake the defense-related activities that would be 
     authorized in a proposed amendment to S. 2182, 103d Cong., 2d 
     Sess. (1994), the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization 
     bill for FY 1995. The amendment, according to the text that 
     you have provided to us, would authorize the transfer of 
     excess defense articles to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
     Republic under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign 
     Assistance Act, and would specifically extend the authorities 
     of various other defense-related statutes to cover leases and 
     loans of defense articles to and various cooperative defense 
     activities with these countries. The amendment would add 
     Section 1017 to the proposed bill. Given the brevity of our 
     deadline, we are providing only a preliminary discussion of 
     the provisions that may be implicated by the proposed 
     amendment. Except for indicating AECA eligibility dates for 
     Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, we do not discuss 
     Executive Branch implementation of the provisions discussed 
     below.
       Section 1017(b) would authorize the President to transfer 
     excess defense articles under the foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (FAA)\1\ or the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to 
     Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       As a general matter, Sec. 620(f) of the FAA prohibits the 
     furnishing of assistance to any Communist country unless the 
     President makes certain findings. Until October 1992, the 
     Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Hungarian People's 
     Republic, and the Polish People's Republic were specifically 
     listed as Communist countries for purposes of the 
     prohibition. These countries were removed from Sec. 620(f) 
     list in Sec. 901 of the FREEDOM Support Act, Pub. L. No. 
     102-511, 106 Stat. 3355. At present, there do not appear 
     to be any other general FAA provisions specifically 
     prohibiting FAA assistance to the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
     or Poland.
        Section 517 of the FAA\2\ specifically authorizes the 
     President to transfer excess defense articles, without cost 
     to the recipient countries, for modernization of the defense 
     capabilities of countries of NATO's southern flank. The term 
     ``excess defense article'' is defined in Sec. 644(g) of the 
     FAA as ``the quantity of defense articles (other than 
     construction equipment, including tractors, scrapers, 
     loaders, graders, bulldozers, dump trucks, generators, and 
     compressors) owned by the United States government, and not 
     procured in anticipation of military assistance or sales 
     requirements, or pursuant to a military assistance or sales 
     order, which is in excess or the Approved Force Acquisition 
     Objective and Approved Force Retention Stock of all 
     Department of Defense Components at the time such articles 
     are dropped from inventory by the supplying agency for 
     delivery to countries or international organizations under 
     this Act.''
       Eligible recipients under Sec. 516 are (1) NATO member 
     countries on the southern flank of NATO that are eligible for 
     United States security assistance and which are integrated 
     into NATO's military structure; (2) major non-NATO allies on 
     the southern and southeastern flank of NATO which are 
     eligible for United States security assistance; and (3) those 
     countries which, as of October 1, 1990, contributed armed 
     forces to deter Iraqi aggression in the Arabian Gulf, and 
     which either received Foreign Military Financing (FMF) 
     assistance in FY 1990 or are in the Near East region and 
     received FMF assistance in FY 1991 on FY 1992. A member of 
     NATO on the southern flank of NATO is defined to mean Greece, 
     Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey (Sec. 516(e)). While 
     category (2) is not defined in the statute,\3\ it would not 
     appear that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic fall 
     within any of the three categories of authorized recipients 
     for purposes of this section.\4\
       Section 518 authorizes the President to transfer nonlethal 
     excess defense articles and small arms to friendly countries 
     for resource conversation and management purposes.
       Section 519 authorizes the President to transfer to 
     countries for whom an FMF program is justified for the fiscal 
     year in which the transfer is authorized, such nonlethal 
     excess-defense articles as the President determines necessary 
     to help modernize the defense capabilities of such countries, 
     in accordance with the provisions of the section. Transfers 
     are authorized only if (1) the equipment is drawn from 
     existing stocks of the DOD, (2) no DOD funds available for 
     procurement of defense equipment are expended in connection 
     with the transfer, (3) the President determines that the 
     transfer will not have an adverse impact on the military 
     readiness of the United States and (4) the President 
     determines that transferring articles under Sec. 519 is 
     preferable to selling them, after taking into account the 
     potential proceeds from, and the likelihood of, such sales, 
     and the comparative foreign policy benefits that may accrue 
     to the United States as the result of either a transfer or 
     sale.\5\ Transfers may be made under this section 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, except title V of 
     the National Security Act of 1947. Further, the Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations Act for FY 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-
     87, provides at Sec. 555, that Sec. 519 may be used in FY 
     1994 to provide nonlethal excess defense articles to 
     countries for which United States foreign assistance has been 
     requested and for which receipt of such articles was 
     separately justified for the fiscal year, without regard to 
     the restrictions in Sec. 519(a).
       The President also has special authority under the FAA to 
     transfer defense articles in emergency situations or 
     notwithstanding other provisions of law. Section 506 
     authorizes the President to direct the drawdown of defense 
     articles from Department of Defense stocks in the event of an 
     unforseen emergency requiring immediate military assistance 
     to a foreign country or international organization and the 
     emergency requirement cannot be met under the authority of 
     the AECA or any other law except Sec. 506. Section 614(a) 
     authorizes the President to authorize the furnishing of FAA 
     assistance without regard to any other provision of the FAA, 
     the AECA, any law relating to receipts and credits accruing 
     to the United States, and any Act authorizing or 
     appropriating funds for use under the FAA if he determines 
     and notifies Congress that to do so is important to the 
     security interest of the United States. Section 614(b) 
     authorizes the President to make sales, extend credit, and 
     issue guarantees under the AECA if the President determines 
     and notifies the Congress that doing so is vital to the 
     national security interests of the United States. The amount 
     of assistance that may annually be provided under these 
     special authorities is limited by statute.
       The Arms Export Control Act authorizes, inter alia, 
     government-to-government sales of defense articles and 
     services to eligible countries.\6\ Poland, Hungary, and the 
     Czech Republic have been rendered eligible for 
     AECA transactions as provided under Sec. 3 of the Act.\7\ 
     Section 21 authorizes the President to sell defense 
     articles and defense services from DOD stocks to any 
     eligible country or international organization if the 
     country or organization agrees to pay in United States 
     dollars--(A) in the case of a defense article not intended 
     to be replaced at the time the agreement is entered into, 
     not less than the actual value of the article or (B) in 
     the case of a defense article intended to be replaced at 
     the time the agreement is entered into, the estimated cost 
     of replacement of the article. While Sec. 21 does not use 
     the term ``excess defense article,'' its reference to 
     defense articles that are not intended to be replaced 
     would appear to indicate that excess defense articles may 
     be sold under this provision. A preference for sales of 
     excess defense articles would also appear to be indicated 
     in Sec. 21(i), which provides that sales of defense 
     articles that ``could have significant adverse effect on 
     the combat readiness of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States shall be kept to an absolute minimum.'' The statute 
     was recently amended, however, to require the President to 
     ``first consider'' the technological impact of sales of 
     excess defense articles from stocks before entering into 
     such sales.\8\ The Act also authorizes the President to 
     enter into contracts for the procurement of defense 
     articles for cash sales to any foreign country or 
     international organization (Sec. 22) and to finance the 
     procurement of defense articles by friendly countries and 
     international organizations (Sec. 23). Foreign Military 
     Financing (FMF) programs may be established under the 
     authority of Sec. 23 of the AECA for countries determined 
     to be eligible for AECA programs. As indicated earlier, a 
     country for which an FMF program is in effect for a 
     particular fiscal year may be the recipient of excess non-
     lethal defense articles provided under Sec. 519 of the 
     FAA.
       Section 1017(c) would eliminate the legislative review 
     requirement set forth in Sec. 63 of the AECA for leases of 
     defense articles under Sec. 6l of the AECA and loans of 
     defense articles under the military assistance provisions of 
     the FAA (Part II, Chapter 2) above certain amounts, where 
     such leases or loans are made to the Czech Republic, Hungary 
     or Poland. Under current law, legislative review does not 
     apply with respect to loans or leases to NATO, any member 
     country of NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand. Neither 
     Poland, Hungary, nor the Czech Republic are specifically 
     exempted from this requirement; nor is there a general 
     provision allowing for their exemption from Sec. 63.
       Section 1017(d) would amend Sec. 65 of the AECA to 
     specifically allow the Secretary of Defense to loan to 
     Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic supplies and 
     equipment for the purposes of carrying out a program of 
     cooperative research, development, testing or evaluation. 
     Under current law, such loans may be made to a country that 
     is a NATO ally or to a country that is a major non-NATO ally. 
     Pursuant to Sec. 65(d), these countries include a member 
     country of NATO (other than the United States) or a foreign 
     country other than a member nation of NATO designated as a 
     ``major non-NATO ally'' under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2350a(i)(3).
       Section 2350a authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter 
     into memoranda of understanding (or other formal agreements) 
     with one of more major allies of the United States for the 
     purpose of conducting cooperative research and development 
     projects on defense equipment and munitions. A major ally of 
     the United States is defined in Sec. 2350a(i)(2) as a member 
     nation of NATO (other than the United States) or a ``major 
     non-NATO ally.'' The term ``major non-NATO ally'' is defined 
     in Sec. 2350a(i)(3) as ``a country, other than a member 
     nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that is 
     designated as a major non-NATO ally for purposes of this 
     section by the Secretary of Defense with the concurrence of 
     the Secretary of State.'' Were Poland, Hungary, or the Czech 
     Republic to be designated ``a major non-NATO ally'' under 
     this provision of Title 10, the country or countries so 
     designated would apparently be eligible to receive the 
     materials, supplies or equipment referred to in Sec. 65. The 
     proposed amendment, however, would seemingly allow the loan 
     of Sec. 65 items to the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland 
     without the need for a special country determination under 
     Title 10.
       Section 1017(e) would amend 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2350c(e)(1)(B) 
     to specifically allow the Secretary of Defense to enter into 
     a cooperative military airlift agreement with the government 
     of the Czech Republic, Hungary for Poland for the 
     transportation of the personnel and cargo of the military 
     forces of that country on aircraft operated by or for the 
     military forces of the United States in return for the 
     reciprocal transportation of the personnel and cargo of craft 
     operated by or for the military forces of the other country. 
     Section 2350c allows the Secretary to enter into such 
     agreements with the government of ``any allied country.'' 
     Under current law (22 U.S.C. Sec. 2350c(e)), the term 
     ``allied country'' is defined as: (A) a country that is a 
     member of NATO; (B) Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the 
     Republic of Korea; and (C) any other country designated as an 
     allied country for the purposes of this section by the 
     Secretary of Defense with the concurrences of the Secretary 
     of State. Again, were the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland 
     to be designated an ``allied country'' under 
     Sec. 2350c(e)(1)(C), the Secretary of Defense could seemingly 
     enter in to a cooperative military airlift agreement with the 
     country or countries so designated. The proposed amendment 
     would presumably allow the Secretary to enter into such an 
     agreement with Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic without 
     first making a special country determination under 
     Sec. 2350c(e)(1)(C).
       Section 1017(f) would amend 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2350f(d)(1)(B) 
     to specifically allow the Secretary of Defense to enter into 
     a bilateral arrangement with Poland, Hungary or the Czech 
     Republic or to enter into a multilateral arrangement with 
     these countries under which, in return for being provided 
     communications support and related supplies and services, the 
     United States would agree to provide to those countries, an 
     equivalent value of communications support and related 
     supplies and services. Section 2350f(a) allows the Secretary 
     to enter into such agreements with the government of ``any 
     allied country.'' Under current law (22 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2350f(d)), the term ``allied country'' is defined as: 
     (A) a country that is a member of NATO; (B) Australia, New 
     Zealand, Japan, and the Republic of Korea; and (C) any 
     other country designated as an allied country for the 
     purposes of this section by the Secretary of Defense with 
     the concurrence of the Secretary of State. As with the two 
     preceding provisions, were Poland, Hungary, or the Czech 
     Republic to be designated an ``allied country'' under 
     Sec. 2350f(d)(C), the Secretary of Defense could 
     presumably enter into Sec. 2350f agreements with the 
     country or countries so designated. The proposed amendment 
     would seemingly allow the Secretary to enter into such 
     agreements with Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic, 
     either bilaterally or multilaterally, without first making 
     a special country determination under Sec. 2350f(d)(C).
       We hope that this information is helpful to you and that 
     you will call on us if you have any additional questions.
                                               Jeanne J. Grimmett,
                      Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.

                               footnotes

     \1\Section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act provided the 
     authority for the FAA grant military assistance program 
     (MAP). Grant assistance formerly provided under the MAP is 
     now apparently provided under the Foreign Military Financing 
     (FMF) program established under the Arms Export Control Act. 
     See, e.g., Congressional Presentations for Security 
     Assistance Programs for FY 1991 and FY 1992, prepared by the 
     Department of State and the Defense Security Assistance 
     Agency of the Department of Defense.
     \2\Sections 516 and 519 of the FAA were recently amended to 
     require the President to consider the effect of a transfer of 
     an excess defense article on the national technological and 
     industrial base. Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
     Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, Sec. 731.
     \3\This category was added in the DOD Appropriations Act, 
     1988, Pub. L. No. 100-202, Sec. 8143, 101 Stat. 1329-89.
     \4\See infra note 7 regarding dates of these countries' AECA 
     eligibility.
     \5\Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been made eligible to 
     receive nonlethal excess defense articles under Sec. 519 
     without regard to the restrictions in Sec. 519(a). FREEDOM 
     Support Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-511, Sec. 906(a).
     \6\Sections 21 and 61 of the Arms Export Control Act were 
     recently amended to require the President to consider the 
     effect of a sale or lease of an excess defense article on the 
     national technological and industrial base. Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 
     103-236, Sec. 731.
     \7\Poland and Hungary were determined to be eligible on 
     December 6, 1991; the Czech Republic and Slovakia on December 
     27, 1993.
     \8\Pub. L. No. 103-236, Sec. 731, adding Sec. 21(k).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Colorado finished?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Kentucky?
  Mr. BROWN. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Colorado 
for his amendment and for his work in this area. He is absolutely 
correct when he says what this is about is sending a signal. If the 
Senate was unwilling, on a vote of 53 to 44, to go quite as far as the 
Senator from Kentucky was willing to go, maybe it will be willing to go 
as far as the Senator from Colorado is now advocating.
  I think the Senator from Colorado is offering an excellent amendment. 
I think he shares my view that the people of Eastern Europe are waiting 
around to see if there is ever going to be a time that we will make a 
meaningful gesture. With all due respect to the President, I do not 
believe anybody believes the Partnership for Peace is a meaningful 
gesture. I suppose the Senator is talking to the same people I am, and 
I do not find anybody who is convinced--the ambassadors of those 
countries or the Americans whose ancestors came from those countries 
and care about their fate--that the Partnership for Peace is anything 
other than words.
  So what we have been groping for here in amendments to previous bills 
and in amendments to this bill, is something tangible, something 
meaningful, that sends--as the Senator from Colorado put it--a very 
clear signal that there is a future, at least for some of those 
countries, sometime soon, in a new and expanded NATO. So I hope the 
Brown amendment will be approved.
  It seems to me that, as he indicated, if you thought the McConnell 
amendment was a little too strong--and the Senate by a very narrow vote 
reached that conclusion--then maybe this is the amendment that they are 
willing to pass that will send that signal we all feel is so important 
for the people in Eastern Europe.
  I thank the Senator from Colorado for his fine contribution.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I have no wish to unnecessarily prolong 
the debate. At this point, if the other side would like us to yield 
back time and move to a vote, I would be happy to comply.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, again, we have a matter that--on my time, 
of course--we have a matter that was raised on the defense 
authorization bill and was opposed at that time. It is really not 
something that should be on this bill.
  With little debate before a committee that has not considered this 
matter, we will decide to start dumping lethal weapons in Eastern 
Europe. We have no way of knowing where these weapons will end up. 
There is a procedure being followed as to how they might go. I know we 
send weapons all over the world, but every so often this comes back to 
haunt us. We are deciding legislation on an appropriations bill to make 
a major policy decision. It would normally be done on the defense 
authorization bill or elsewhere. But we want to do it here.
  That is a decision the Senate is going to have to make. I am willing 
to yield back the remainder of my time. The only reason I have not, I 
tell the Senator, is we are checking to see if there are other Senators 
who may need to speak.
  So I am going to suggest, in a moment, the absence of a quorum, and 
ask that the time run equally. With that, Madam President, I do suggest 
the absence of a quorum and ask that the time run equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Brown amendment No. 2248.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that that 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2293

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning World Bank 
    loans to countries acting to enforce the Arab boycott of Israel)

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2293.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new section:

     ``SEC.   . LOANS TO NATIONS THAT ENFORCE THE ARAB BOYCOTT OF 
                   ISRAEL.

       ``The President should use the voice and vote of the United 
     States in all multilateral banks of which the United States 
     is a member to ensure that no loans are given to nations 
     which support or encourage the primary, secondary or tertiary 
     boycott of Israel.''

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 2293. 
I will simply go through it. It is quite succinct.
  It says:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section: Loans to nations that enforce the Arab boycott of 
     Israel. The President should use the voice and vote of the 
     United States in all multilateral banks of which the United 
     States is a member to ensure that no loans are given to 
     nations which support or encourage the primary, secondary, or 
     tertiary boycott of Israel.

  Some may ask why in the world is this appropriate on this measure. 
Let me try and respond to that.
  Shockingly, even though we are many years down the road after the 
Egypt-Israel accord, even though we have made enormous progress in 
terms of bringing peace in the Middle East, even though there is every 
reason to hope that the Palestinians may develop a peaceful 
cohabitation with Israel, tragically and shockingly, a number of 
countries in the Middle East continue to engage in the very intensive 
effort to boycott Israel. Specifically, Middle Eastern countries 
continue to urge American businesses not to do business with Israel. 
Shockingly, many of them even threaten to cut off business with 
American companies if those companies continue to do business with 
Israel.
  This is simply not acceptable. The purpose of this amendment is to 
make our feelings clear that this kind of activity not only is not 
acceptable but is one that should be addressed through the very 
influential arm of those multilateral banks which have so much 
influence in the Middle East.
  I believe by using our vote and using our voice of influence we can 
have a significant and a substantial impact on those countries that 
continue to insist on this kind of extortion against American 
businesses.
  Madam President, there are many others who have expressed their views 
on this in other measures that have come before the Senate. But I 
believe that this measure expresses the feelings of all American 
citizens and their sense of outrage that American businesses should be 
subjected to this kind of influence, pressure, and extortion. My hope 
is that the Chamber will include this as a sense of this body's 
feelings on this practice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand this amendment will be 
accepted.
  I ask unanimous consent, while the principals are on the floor now, 
that we agree on this amendment, but as to the amendment on which the 
yeas and nays have been ordered that we begin the rollcall vote on that 
at 9 o'clock. So whatever remaining time remains each side would have 
to yield back an appropriate amount so that we have that vote at 9 
o'clock and that Bumpers vote would follow immediately.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Ten minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. And the Bumpers vote be a 10-minute vote. I make that 
request, Madam President, that the Brown amendment on which the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, the rollcall vote on that begin at 9 p.m., 
and that immediately following that we go to the rollcall vote on the 
Bumpers amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, and 
that the Bumpers amendment vote be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to this unanimous consent 
agreement?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2293

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am willing to accept the amendment of 
the Senator from Colorado, the current amendment.
  If that is accepted we can probably clear up a few other amendments 
between now and the hour of 9 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the pending 
amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The amendment (No. 2293) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Colorado has time 
remaining on his amendment as we do on this side. I wonder now since we 
will have a vote at 9 p.m. if we might yield back all that time except 
for 5 minutes evenly divided and then in that 10 minutes between now 
and 8:55 p.m. the Senator from Kentucky and I can probably dispose of a 
pile of amendments. I would make that request. I wonder if the Senator 
from Colorado would have any objection?
  Madam President, between 8:55 p.m. and 9 p.m. we will see what we can 
process.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 2257, 2258, 2269, 2273, 2274, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2283, 
            2286, 2287, 2288, 2292, 2296, and 2298, En Bloc

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order now for me to call up en bloc the following amendments, that they 
be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table en bloc. These amendments are: 2257, 2258, 2269, 
2273, 2274, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2283, 2286, 2287, 2288, 2292, 2296, and 
2298.
  I note that this has been cleared with the concurrence of the ranking 
member, the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senator from Vermont is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we 
need to withdraw one of the amendments that the Senator from Vermont 
read. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment 2273.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2273 offered by the Senator from 
Kansas [Mr. Dole], is withdrawn from the request by the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The amendment (No. 2273) was withdrawn.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I amend my unanimous consent request 
accordingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request of the Senator from Vermont?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2257

      (Purpose: To limit the provision of assistance to Nicaragua)

  Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 2257.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, section 557 of the bill prohibits foreign 
aid to the Government of Nicaragua, unless certain conditions are met. 
I thank the managers for their cooperation and I welcome Senator 
McConnell as a principal cosponsor.
  The provision is identical to a provision in last year's bill, with 
one exception--language is missing that would require a full and 
independent investigation into the terrorist network involved in the 
Santa Rosa arms cache. Senators will remember that the Santa Rosa arms 
cache exploded on May 23, 1993. That huge arms cache made clear that a 
Nicaraguan terrorist network was involved with kidnapping, gun-running 
and other illicit activities.
  I am confident that omitting this language was an oversight. 
Normally, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that substantial 
progress would be made on a year long investigation. But that's not the 
case. During the past year the Nicaraguan Government has done next to 
nothing. So, my amendment corrects this oversight by simply inserting 
into section 557 the identical language from last year's foreign aid 
bill regarding an investigation.
  The Congress considers Nicaraguan Government attempts to satisfy the 
conditions in last year's bill to be a total failure. In fact, the 
Nicaraguan Government didn't even make an effort. If Mrs. Chamorro 
would have satisfied even one condition I am sure the managers of the 
bill would have dropped that particular condition from the section. But 
that didn't happen.
  What the Nicaraguan Government purports to be an investigation into 
the activities of terrorists in Nicaragua, is merely a dog-and-pony 
show to fool the gringos. The Sandinista-controlled National Police is 
conducting the investigation, so Mrs. Chamorro has put the fox in 
charge of the henhouse.
  The situation is so blatant that even the State Department admitted 
to my office recently that no progress had been made on the 
investigation. That's why this amendment is needed. [I add 
parenthetically, Mr. President, that the State Department also told us 
that no progress had been made on any of the other conditions.]
  It will be impossible, in my judgment, for Nicaragua to satisfy all 
the conditions in last year's bill before the end of the fiscal year. 
The managers of the bill understand that fact and that's why they 
included all of last year's conditions in this year's bill. I can't 
imagine that the State Department will approve sending more bilateral 
foreign aid to Nicaragua until those conditions are satisfied. To 
remind the Senate, those conditions are regarding: (1) terrorism; (2) 
property rights; (3) human rights; (4) civilian control of the 
military; (5) civilian control of the police; and (6) judicial reform.
  As I stated earlier, Mr. President, there hasn't been an 
investigation into the numerous terrorist arms caches found in 
Nicaragua. Naturally, since there has been no investigation, there have 
been no prosecutions. It is a fact that Sandinista military authorities 
knew of the existence of these arms caches--and the United States 
Congress wants all those at the highest levels of the Nicaraguan 
Government who knew of their existence to be punished.
  Properties stolen from U.S. citizens are not being returned. When I 
checked recently, the Nicaraguan Government had made significant and 
tangible progress resolving only 22 property claims of United States 
citizens. This is a miserable effort considering the fact that more 
than 650 Americans, owning more than 1,500 properties, have outstanding 
claims. I am informed that the Nicaraguan Government may resolve 
several of the high profile cases soon. But, Congress has a right to 
expect much more from the Chamorro Government, in light of the fact 
that American taxpayers have handed over more than $1 billion to her 
government in a few short years.
  Regarding the condition pertaining to the recommendations of the 
Tripartite Commission, last year I reported that 300 demobilized and 
disarmed former resistance members were murdered by the Sandinistas. At 
the time, only two people were in jail as a result of the Commission's 
recommendations. The only change from my report last year is that more 
demobilized and disarmed former Resistance members have been murdered, 
and nothing is being done about it. Those same two people are still the 
only people reportedly in jail.
  There is no civilian control over the military. General Ortega is 
still head of the Sandinista Popular Army. They say he'll retire next 
year, but I've got to see it happen before I can believe it. I am 
confident that Mrs. Chamorro will replace Ortega with another 
Sandinista thug. Furthermore, nothing has been done to put the 
Sandinista National Police under civilian control.
  Finally, significant and tangible reform of the Nicaraguan judicial 
system means that corruption and bribery must end. The only way of 
accomplishing this is for Mrs. Chamorro to appoint non-Sandinista 
judges so that the Sandinistas will no longer hold the majority. But 
she has done the exact opposite. She has appointed virtually all 
Sandinista judges or judges who always vote with the Sandinistas.
  Mr. President, the Nicaraguan Government has broken every single one 
of those promises it has made to the United States government, not to 
mention promises it made to the long-suffering people of Nicaragua. The 
days of broken promises are over.
  There should be no more foreign aid to the Government of Nicaragua 
until after it complies with each condition. I am persuaded that 
withholding aid until after real progress is made is the only way to 
restore freedom and democracy to the Nicaraguan people.


                           amendment no. 2258

  (Purpose: To limit the authority to reduce U.S. government debt to 
                           certain countries)

  Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 2258.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment is to Section 561 called 
``Authority to Reduce Debt''. More specifically, Section 561 provides 
authority to cancel various debts owed by foreign governments to the 
United States. I welcome the able Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) as 
a principal cosponsor of this amendment.
  The bottom line, in my judgment, is that the entire Section 561 
should be stripped from the bill. Otherwise Congress might as well 
propose that money be handed out willy-nilly to foreign countries. (Of 
course, that money being given away so freely belongs to the U.S. 
taxpayers.) The bottom line is that canceling these debts owed by these 
countries is just more foreign aid with the American taxpayers again 
left holding the bag.
  Now, Mr. President, Section 561 identifies four conditions that would 
make a country ineligible to have its debt canceled: (1) excess 
military spending, (2) support for terrorism, (3) noncooperation in 
narcotics control matters, and (4) human rights abuses. My amendment 
simply adds a fifth condition. No nation can be eligible to have its 
debt to the U.S. government canceled if it confiscates, without just 
compensation, property owned by a U.S. citizen.
  The United States government has already forgiven billions of dollars 
in debt owed by numerous countries that have stolen property of U.S. 
citizens. The word ``stolen,'' Mr. President, is justified because 
these governments are refusing to compensate American property owners. 
My office has received appeals from American citizens with legitimate 
claims that their property has been confiscated by and in many 
countries, including Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, 
Nicaragua, and Uruguay. Every one of these countries have had their 
debts to the U.S. government forgiven during the past 5 years.
  In fact, from 1990 to 1993, our government canceled $1.399 billion 
owed to the United States by these six countries. Nicaragua alone had 
$284.3 million in debts owed to the U.S. forgiven, while that 
government flatly refused--and still refuses--to resolve hundreds of 
property claims of U.S. citizens. This makes no sense, Mr. President, 
and if Congress has any concern for American citizens who have been 
ripped off by foreign governments, this amendment will be approved 
overwhelmingly.

  I have done my best to help these Americans. So has the excellent 
staff from the minority on the Foreign Relations Committee. Bud Nance 
and I have written letters to administration officials pleading for 
help. We have requested assistance, both in writing and in face-to-face 
meetings, from foreign officials. My office has produced several 
detailed reports on the subject. We modified U.S. foreign aid law--
known as the Hickenlooper and Gonzalez amendments--to enable U.S. 
citizens to gain compensation for confiscated property. We are 
assisting U.S. citizens with their property claims every day.
  Nevertheless, these foreign countries are thumbing their noses at 
these American citizens whose properties have been confiscated. The 
Clinton administration continues to jump to the defense of these 
foreign governments. Secretary Bentsen told me on June 24--and 
Secretary Christopher told me on June 30--that the administration would 
waive the recently modified Gonzalez amendment in order to support 
multilateral bank loans to Nicaragua, despite the fact that Nicaragua 
refuses to resolve the vast majority of hundreds of outstanding 
property claims. This is an outrageous treatment of American citizens 
by the officials of their government.
  Sure enough, a few days later, the United States voted to give 
Nicaragua $173 million in new loans from the International Monetary 
Fund [IMF]. And, guess what, Mr. President? In September, the 
Nicaraguan Government intends to ask the Paris Club--that's the 
official entity established by the major industrial countries to 
coordinate debt policy--to cancel $500 million it owes to various 
multilateral banks.
  There can and will be no progress on these cases unless and until 
real pressure is brought to bear on the offending government--and 
financial pressure is one of the strongest means available. The U.S. 
Government shouldn't hand out foreign aid to these countries, and if an 
offending country owes the U.S. government money, all confiscated 
property cases should be resolved before any debt is canceled.
  Mr. President, for years now, I have received letters from hundreds 
of American citizens who have had their homes and/or businesses 
confiscated in various countries around the world.
  Last year a letter came from Louis Valentine of Vermont describing 
how he was treated--which is typical of the way Americans have been 
treated.
  In 1972, the Honduran Government forced Mr. Valentine to hand over 
two prime commercial lots in exchange for allowing his wife to travel 
to the United States for emergency medical treatment. Mr. Valentine has 
spent the last 13 years working to receive compensation for property 
confiscated by the Honduran Government. He won his case in court--
several times--but the Honduran Government refused to provide 
compensation. And bear in mind, Mr. President, that another 50 
Americans have filed property claims with the U.S. Embassy in Honduras. 
And in 1991, the United States Government forgave $333 million owed by 
Honduras.
  I am aware that the manager of the bill, Senator Leahy, pressed the 
former President of Honduras to resolve Mr. Valentine's case. But, 
nothing was done. I know that Vice President Gore asked the new 
Honduran president, President Reina, to resolve this case quickly. But 
Mr. Valentine waited and waited.

  My office facilitated meetings between Mr. Valentine and Honduran 
government officials in Honduras in February. We featured the Valentine 
case prominently in a recent committee report on expropriations. But, 
nothing happened. Friendly persuasion was not getting the job done.
  On June 13, we received another letter from Mr. Valentine. Let me 
read some pertinent remarks:

       In spite of the fact that President Reina has issued strict 
     and special orders to the Ministry of Economy to pay our 
     company * * * not one cent has been disbursed as yet.
       In the interim, I had a mild heart attack in Honduras--due, 
     the cardiologist says, to the thirteen years of stress and 
     strain in connection with this case * * * my wife and I are 
     returning to Honduras on the 14th to continue the struggle. 
     Any additional pressure you can generate at your end will be 
     greatly appreciated.

  Mr. President, yesterday, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, Bill Pryce, 
called to tell me that the Honduran Government finally--after more than 
13 years--compensated Mr. Valentine.
  Well, Mr. President, I appreciate President Reina resolving this one 
case. But Mr. Valentine was not the only American waiting to be 
compensated. The Honduran government should compensate for property 
taken from all American citizens before they are eligible to have the 
$95 million that they currently owe to the U.S. government forgiven. 
And that's precisely what this amendment requires.
  Mr. President, Secretary Christopher stated at his confirmation 
hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee that he intended to have 
an American Desk at the State Department. I've reminded the Secretary 
of his statement on numerous occasions. Well, with all due respect, Mr. 
President, if there is in fact an American Desk down at Foggy Bottom, 
it must be hidden in a dark corner in the basement. More needs to be 
done. Foreign countries should understand there will be a price to pay 
if they confiscate, without just compensation, property owned by U.S. 
citizens.
  Congress must make the State Department put American interests first. 
I imagine that some Senators might ask, ``Which countries will be 
affected by this amendment * * *. Will it hurt a country we like?'' 
Well, we shouldn't fret about which countries will be affected. The 
over-riding principle is that Congress should give top priority to 
protecting the rights of American citizens abroad.
  This amendment will make it perfectly clear to all those countries 
asking the U.S. taxpayers to forgive their debt, that all American 
property claims must be settled beforehand. Such countries should have 
three choices: First, to give the property back; second, to provide 
fair compensation for the property; or third, to be refused debt 
forgiveness. It's that simple, and it's fair to American citizens.


                           amendment no. 2269

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2269.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 53, line 11, strike the word ``Provided'' and 
     insert the following:
       Provided, That only those activities, programs, projects, 
     type of material assistance, countries, or other operations 
     referred to under this paragraph which have been justified 
     through Congressional Presentation documents and/or budget 
     justification documents presented in the same format and in 
     the same level of detail as provided in fiscal year 1993 
     shall be considered to be justified under the language of 
     this paragraph: Provided further

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last several months, in 
hearings of our subcommittee and in meetings with administration 
officials, I have expressed my concern about the inadequacy of the 
administration's budget justifications for its foreign assistance 
program. The chairman of the subcommittee has likewise expressed such 
concern.
  During a hearing at which the AID Administrator testified, I pointed 
out that there are domestic regulatory agencies with $40-million 
budgets which provide more justification material than AID provided for 
the $1.2-billion Russia/NIS and Eastern European programs. Indeed, we 
got more information on some individual projects in Uganda than we did 
for all of Russia.
  I finally found it necessary to object to any more money flowing to 
Russia and the NIS until the administration agreed to rework and 
supplement their justification material, also known as congressional 
presentation documents, for Russia and the NIS and submit them to us 
before the beginning of the new fiscal year.
  Expressed in its simplest form the appropriations procedure I am 
addressing today is as follows:
  First, we receive budget requests from the administration for various 
broad appropriations categories;
  Second, the administration provides us with detailed documentation--
the budget justification material--telling us exactly how they plan to 
spend the money;
  Third, Congress appropriates the requested money assuming it will be 
spent in the manner and for the specific purpose requested, or in some 
cases through the law or in accompanying reports, Congress tells the 
administration to spend the funds provided in some other fashion.
  Fourth, throughout the year, the administration sometimes finds, for 
good fiscal or policy reasons, that its spending decisions need to 
change. Perhaps they want to spend funds justified for one purpose or 
project for something which they have not requested funds or to spend 
more for that purpose or project. The administration is allowed to make 
such changes, by law, by notifying the committee through what is 
commonly called the reprogramming process.
  Fifth, the committee reviews these changes, and while it almost 
always accedes to the administration's requests, it can say ``no'' or 
perhaps suggest modifications.
  The amendment I have offered addresses these last two parts of the 
process which the administration is now trying to short-circuit by not 
sending us notifications for certain changes they wish to make in AID's 
Development Assistance Program. Specifically, they seek to eliminate 
projects as the base for notification for the Development Assistance 
Program, contrary to what they have done for at least the last 18 
years. This change would eliminate congressional approval or input to 
most of the changes, heretofore made by this and previous 
administrations.
  I do not believe Congress should give such wide latitude to the 
administration. While this stated goal--reduction of time-consuming 
paperwork--is laudatory, I do not believe it should come at the expense 
of Congress' constitutional power over Federal spending.
  This issue is not new. A reading of the history of the appropriations 
process, since the creation of the Appropriations Committee in 1867, 
records many attempts by the executive branch to usurp or restrict 
congressional spending power. During times of national emergency, 
Congress has temporarily given the executive more latitude over 
spending decisions. This was true during the Civil War, World War I, 
World War II, and during many of the Vietnam war years. Now is not such 
a time.
  I am not trying to argue that the attempt by the Department of State 
and AID to usurp congressional spending authority is comparable to some 
of these earlier, more significant battles between the legislative and 
executive branches, but it is in the same family.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           Amendment no. 2274

 (Purpose: To amend the Japan-United States Friendship Act to broaden 
 investment authority and to strengthen criteria for membership on the 
               Japan-United States Friendship Commission)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2274 for Mr. Murkowski and Mr. 
Rockefeller.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . UNITED STATES PANEL OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON UNITED 
                   STATES-JAPAN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL 
                   COOPERATION.

       Section 4 of the Japan-United States Friendship Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2903) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) The membership of the United States Panel of the 
     Joint Committee on United States-Japan Cultural and 
     Educational cooperation shall be drawn for among individuals 
     who are deeply familiar with Japan and United States-Japan 
     relations, as demonstrated in their professional careers, and 
     who have performed distinguished service in--
       ``(1) law, business, or finances;
       ``(2) education, training, or research at post-secondary 
     levels;
       ``(3) the media or publishing;
       ``(4) foundation or philanthropic activity;
       ``(5) the American arts, culture, or the humanities; or
       ``(6) other aspects of American public life.''

     SEC.   . BROADENING INVESTMENT AUTHORITY.

       Section 7 of the Japan-United States Friendship Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2906) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, at the 
     direction of the Chairman of the Commission,'' after 
     ```Secretary')''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``in interest 
     bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations 
     guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United 
     States'' and inserting ``in instruments or public debt with 
     maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund''; and (2) in 
     subsection (c), by inserting ``, at the direction of the 
     Chairman of the Commission,'' after ``sold''.

                           amendment no. 2276

 (Purpose: To reaffirm the applicability of section 401 of Public Law 
  103-236, relating to the establishment of an independent office of 
              Inspector General within the United Nations)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2257 for Mr. Pressler.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:


               united nations office of inspector general

       Sec.   . The Senate hereby reaffirms that section 401 of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) remains in effect, including 
     all its terms and conditions relating to the establishment of 
     an independent office of Inspector General within the United 
     Nations.


reaffirm the creation of an office of the inspector general: put an end 
                    to u.n. waste, fraud, and abuse

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I offer this amendment today to 
reaffirm section 401 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act--now 
Public Law 103-236. The language in section 401 makes portions of U.S. 
assessed contributions to the regular U.N. budget contingent upon the 
United Nations creation of an independent Office of the Inspector 
General [OIG]. I offer this amendment today to reaffirm section 401, 
because the U.N. General Assembly is considering currently the adoption 
of a resolution which would create an inspector general subject to the 
authority of the U.N. Secretary-General. The OIG--under the current 
General Assembly draft--would not be independent. This is an 
unequivocal violation of the language in section 401--language which is 
now public law.
  On January 26, 1994, this body voted overwhelmingly to adopt my 
amendment which called for the creation of an independent Inspector 
General office at the U.N. In fact, my colleagues voted 93 to 6 to 
adopt the amendment which has become section 401 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act. Our support for this measure must be 
unwavering. We must send a clear and unequivocal message to our U.S. 
Representative, Madeleine Albright, and the U.N. General Assembly that 
the United States will not stand idly by while the United Nations slaps 
us in the face.
  While some of my colleagues may question the relevance of this 
amendment to an appropriations bill, I must say that the importance and 
immediacy of this issue transcends questions of germaneness. What is 
happening at this very minute is that the U.N. General Assembly is 
trying to undo what has been done already. If the United Nations wishes 
to create an OIG which does not meet the stipulations set forth in 
section 401 of the Foreign Relations Act--that's fine. But the U.N. 
General Assembly must realize that if they act in such a fashion, 10 
percent of U.S. assessments to the regular U.N. budget will be 
withheld. And if the United Nations continue to disregard section 401, 
20 percent of the U.S. contributions will be withheld in fiscal year 
1995 as well as 50 percent of the funds appropriated for supplemental 
assessed peacekeeping contributions. If that's what the United Nations 
wants--that is what the United Nations will get.
  It seems that the United Nations has chosen to bite the hand of the 
largest hand that feeds it--the United States. Think about this: In 
1990, the U.S. peacekeeping contribution was $97 million. In 1994-95, 
the U.S. contribution is $3 billion. I am amazed that the world body 
would consider adopting a resolution establishing an OIG which did not 
meet the mandates in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I am 
amazed that the United Nations so flagrantly disregards the necessity 
of U.S. financial support. I am offering this amendment to reaffirm the 
language in section 401, because I want everyone to know what is going 
on at the United Nations. I ask my colleagues to join me again in 
supporting the creation of an independent U.N. Office of the Inspector 
General. If United Nations budgetary and management reform is to be 
meaningful, the terms of any U.N. resolution authorizing an independent 
OIG must be clear, unequivocal, and must reflect the congressional 
intent of section 401 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  Last week, I sent a letter to Ambassador Albright urging her to press 
the General Assembly to adopt a resolution which would adhere to the 
congressional language in section 401. Today, along with my colleagues 
Senator Dole, and Senator Helms, and others we are sending another 
urgent letter to Ambassador Albright. We want everyone to understand 
the extreme importance of this issue. I urge my colleagues to support 
reaffirming the language in section 401--language 93 of my colleagues 
supported during the Roll Call vote in January.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter to Madeleine Albright and the 
text of section 401 be printed in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Committee on Foreign Relations,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
     U.S. Representative to the United Nations, U.S. Mission to 
         the United Nations, New York, NY.
       Dear Ambassador Albright: We understand that the United 
     Nations General Assembly will be considering the resolution 
     creating the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the U.N. in 
     the next forty-eight hours. We further understand that the 
     terms of the draft resolution do not currently meet the 
     criteria for an independent office of an inspector general as 
     defined by Section 401 of United States Public Law 103-236, 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 
     and 1995.
       We write to urge you to press the General Assembly to adopt 
     a resolution which meets the stringent standards as outline 
     in Section 401.
       Section 401 was adopted by the Senate on January 26, 1994, 
     during deliberations on the Foreign Relations Authorization 
     Act, by an overwhelming 93 to 6 vote. As you must be well 
     aware, the Section dictates that the United States withhold 
     assessed contributions to the regular U.N. budget in the 
     event the OIG is not established. Additionally, if the U.N. 
     General Assembly fails to create an office that adheres to 
     the type required in the section, the United States will be 
     forced to withhold 10 percent of the U.N. contributions 
     assessed this fiscal year. If the office is still not 
     established according to the guidelines, by fiscal year 1995, 
     the U.S. will have to withhold 20 percent of assessed 
     contributions, as well as one half of the funds appropriated 
     under Section 102(d) of Public Law 103-236 for supplemental 
     assessed peacekeeping contributions.
       According to Section 401, the United Nations is to have 
     established an independent office ``to conduct and supervise 
     objective audits, inspections, and investigations relating to 
     the programs and operations at the United Nations'' that will 
     have ``access to all records documents, and other available 
     materials relating to (those) programs and operations''. We 
     are including a copy of Section 401.
       Lasting U.N. management and budgetary reform hinges on the 
     creation of the OIG. Consequently, the terms establishing the 
     office must demonstrate unequivocally the independence of the 
     OIG and define clearly its specific oversight 
     responsibilities. We urge you to work diligently to ensure 
     the independence of the OIG since the value of the OIG rests 
     largely on its independence from the dictates of the U.N. 
     bureaucracy. At this crucial moment, it is imperative that 
     U.S. pressure to reform U.N. mismanagement be unwavering.
       Now is a critical time for you, as our U.S. Representative 
     to the U.N., to demonstrate to the General Assembly the U.S. 
     commitment to end U.N. malfeasance. Your influence in the 
     drafting and adoption of a U.N. resolution advocating the 
     establishment of an independent OIG is crucial.
       The stakes are high, the opportunity fleeting. Without 
     significant and immediate action to improve the efficiency of 
     U.N. operations, Congressional willingness to fund U.N. 
     activities will diminish further. We urge you to take 
     immediate action.
           Sincerely,
     Jesse Helms,
     Robert Dole,
     Larry Pressler.

     SEC. 401. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       (a) Withholding of Portion of Certain Assessed 
     Contributions.--Until a certification is made under 
     subsection (b), the following amounts shall be withheld from 
     obligation and expenditure (in following amounts shall be 
     withheld from obligation and expenditure (in addition to any 
     amounts required to be withheld by any other provision of 
     this Act):
       (1) FY 1994 assessed contributions for un regular budget.--
     Of the funds appropriated for ``Contributions to 
     International Organizations'' for fiscal year 1994, 10 
     percent of the amount for United States assessed 
     contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations 
     shall be withheld.
       (2) FY 1995 assessed contributions for un regular budget.--
     Of the funds appropriated for ``Contributions to 
     International Organizations'' for fiscal year 1995, 20 
     percent of the amount for United States assessed 
     contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations 
     shall be withheld.
       (3) Supplemental assessed peacekeeping contributions.--Of 
     the funds appropriated for ``Contributions for International 
     Peacekeeping Activities'' for a fiscal year pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under section 102(d), 50 
     percent shall be withheld.
       (b) Certification.--The certification referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a certification by the President to the 
     Congress that--
       (1) the United Nations has established an independent 
     office of Inspector General to conduct and supervise 
     objective audits, inspections, and investigations relating to 
     the program and operations of the United Nations;
       (2) the Secretary General of the United Nations has 
     appointed an Inspector General, with the approval of the 
     General Assembly, and that appointment was made principally 
     on the basis of the appointee's integrity and demonstrated 
     ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, 
     management analysis, public administration, or 
     investigations;
       (3) the Inspector General is authorized to--
       (A) make investigations and reports relating to the 
     administration of the programs and operations of the United 
     Nations;
       (B) have access to all records, documents, and other 
     available materials relating to those programs and 
     operations; and
       (C) have directed and prompt access to any official of the 
     United Nations;
       (4) the United Nations has procedures in place designated 
     to protect the identity of, and to prevent reprisals against, 
     any staff member making a complaint or disclosing information 
     to, or cooperating in any investigation or inspection by, the 
     Inspector General;
       (5) the United Nations has procedures in place designed to 
     ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Inspector 
     General; and
       (6) the United Nations has procedures in place to ensure 
     that all annual and other relevant reports submitted by the 
     Inspector General are made available to the General Assembly 
     without modification.
       (c) Specialized Agencies.--United States representatives to 
     the United Nations should promote complete Inspector General 
     access to all records and officials of the specialized 
     agencies of the United Nations, and should strive to achieve 
     such access by fiscal year 1996.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this part, the term 
     ``Inspector General'' means the head of an independent office 
     (or other independent entity) established by the United 
     Nations to conduct and supervise objective audits, 
     inspections, and investigations relating to the programs and 
     operations of the United Nations.


                           Amendment No. 2277

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate concerning Japan and Germany 
   becoming permanent members of the United Nations Security Council)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2277 for Mr. Helms and Mr. Roth.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of the Congress concerning German and 
     Japanese permanent membership in the United Nations Security 
     Council.
       In the past five years, the United Nations has engaged in 
     more peacekeeping operations than in the preceding forty;
       The Security Council is the U.N. body chiefly responsible 
     for matters of peace and security;
       Any country accorded permanent membership in an expanded 
     Security Council must be capable of fulfilling all of the 
     responsibilities equated with such status, including 
     participation in any U.N. military operations;
       According permanent membership to nations not capable of 
     carrying out these responsibilities will allow those 
     countries to play a central role in shaping U.N. peacekeeping 
     and peacemaking operations which could endanger the lives 
     of American and other troops, but in which their own 
     forces could play no part;
       Japan and Germany, as the world's second and third largest 
     economies, respectively, have attained levels of global reach 
     and influence equal to or surpassing current permanent 
     members of the Security Council;
       Germany and Japan have announced their desire to gain 
     permanent membership in the Security Council;
       Japan currently maintains that its constitution prohibits 
     the country from carrying out all the peacekeeping and 
     peacemaking responsibilities that permanent membership 
     entails;
       Japan's ruling coalition government appears unwilling to 
     address these issues, even in the face of a potential crisis 
     on the Korean peninsula which may well require multilateral 
     military action;
       The German High Court, sitting in Karlsruhe, Germany, 
     ruled, on July 12, 1994, that the German constitution 
     contains no prohibition against the overseas deployment of 
     Germany's armed forces in multilateral peacekeeping 
     operations.
       Now, therefore, be it the sense of the Senate that:
       (1) Since Germany has addressed the problem of its 
     participation in multilateral military activities, the U.S. 
     should support that nation's prompt elevation to permanent 
     Security Council membership;
       (2) Japan be encouraged to discuss thoroughly and openly 
     its own problems in participating in such activities, and 
     take whatever steps are necessary to enable it to fully 
     engage in any form of U.N. peacekeeping or peacemaking 
     operation; and
       (3) The United States should actively support Japan's 
     effort to gain permanent membership only after Japan take 
     such steps * * *.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, when the Senate considered the State 
Department authorization bill, I attached an amendment to that bill 
expressing the sense of the Senate regarding an issue which I believe 
holds considerable importance for this country. Both Germany and Japan 
had voiced their desire to become permanent members of the U.N. 
Security Council and the Clinton administration had indicated its 
support for council expansion in general and for Japan and Germany 
permanent membership in particular.
  I had no objection to such an expansion, and stated my support, in 
principle, for Tokyo and Bonn gaining permanent membership. Japan and 
Germany's economies now are the world's second and third largest. They 
enjoy global reach and influence extending far beyond that of many 
current permanent Council members. Their elevation to permanent 
membership would, consequently, appear perfectly logical.
  However, I was disturbed because, while both nations were seeking 
permanent Security Council seats, both interested their respective 
constitutions as preventing their militaries' from participating fully 
in U.N. peacekeeping or peacemaking activities. It seemed to me that, 
if Japan and Germany were to be accorded elevated status in the United 
Nations, then they should be able to fulfill all of the 
responsibilities consonant with that status. In particular, I felt that 
they could not be granted permanent Security Council seats while they 
simultaneously were unable to participate in any military undertakings 
approved by that body.
  I ask my colleagues to consider the reaction of the American people 
if they were ever to witness Japanese and German diplomats, casting 
votes in favor of military operations which could endanger the lives of 
United States soldiers while they simultaneously had no legal authority 
to send their own Armed Forces to engage fully in those operations.
  Consequently, the Senate accepted my proposal that the United States 
Government, in principle, support Japanese and German permanent 
Security Council membership; but that, in practice, it do nothing to 
further this initiative until those countries had addressed the 
constitutional problems which prevented their participation in 
multilateral military activities.
  The day before yesterday, I came to the floor to report major 
progress on this issue. On that day, the German High Court, sitting in 
Karlsruhe, ruled that the German Constitution, or ``basic law,'' 
contains no prohibition against German participation in multilateral 
military activities outside NATO territory.
  Let us not fool ourselves. This ruling will not prompt a rush to 
German military activity around the globe, be it under the United 
Nations or NATO flag. The real significance of this ruling is that 
Germany, as a prospective permanent member of the U.N. Security 
Council, has placed itself in the same position as the current 
permanent members of that body. Germany is no longer seeking special 
status. It no longer wishes to join the club without fulfilling all its 
obligations as a member of that club.
  This approach, in my opinion, demonstrates the maturity of German 
democracy. Its participants recognize that with enhanced status comes 
enhanced responsibility. Germany has boldly stepped forward to shoulder 
those responsibilities. In light of this ruling by the German High 
Court and the positive manner in which it was received by the 
government of Chancellor Kohl, I see no reason why the United States 
Government should not immediately throw its weight behind an 
enthusiastic diplomatic campaign to award Germany a permanent seat on 
an expanded Security Council. And I believe strongly that our support 
for German membership not in any way be made contingent on Japan's 
efforts to attain the same status.
  I ardently believe that Japan should gain permanent membership as 
soon as possible, but only after it addresses its own perceived 
constitutional prohibitions against fully participating in United 
Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. Indeed, I believe it 
critical that Japan take up this question as quickly as possible.
  The world's most serious near-term security problem confronts us 
right now on the Korean peninsula. While we all hope a negotiated 
solution is achieved, precious little time is left before North Korea 
may begin extracting more weapons grade plutonium from its spent 
nuclear fuel. As I said on this floor yesterday, should negotiations 
between the United States and North Korea break down, the next step we 
will take will be to move the issue to the U.N. Security Council.

  Unfortunately, Japan has not only steadfastly avoided serious public 
discussion of the problems posed by North Korea, but its leaders 
languish in esoteric legal debate over what Japan can and cannot do 
should the United Nations call for economic sanctions to be imposed on 
the North, a blockade instituted, or most important, should the 
Security Council resolve that military action be permissible.
  Yet under currently accepted interpretations of the Constitution, if 
war did erupt, consider the following:
  Unless Japan were directly attacked by the North, Japan's 700 fighter 
planes, its state-of-the-art antisubmarine technology, its 
minesweepers, and its personnel would sit idly by as Americans, 
Koreans, and perhaps U.N. forces lost their lives.
  In addition, the United States would need to use its own military 
equipment and personnel based in Japan. Under current treaty agreement 
with Tokyo, however, the United States must seek prior consultation 
with Japan for use of American forces in time of conflict. Whether 
Japan would be prepared to consent without wavering has yet to be 
resolved.
  As shocking as it may sound, Japan would not even be able to use its 
own self defense planes and ships to evacuate the 8,000 Japanese 
nationals living in South Korea.
  The possibility of war on the Korean peninsula is terrible even to 
contemplate. But common sense dictates that all countries be prepared 
now, before a crisis erupts. Japan faces some of the very same tough 
choices as Germany regarding the use of its forces in U.N. actions. But 
Japan should not forget that the American drafters of its Constitution 
held that it in no way undermined that nation's ability to participate 
in regional security arrangements or U.N. activities.
  It took the Diet a full year to enact its U.N. peacekeeping 
operations legislation after the gulf war to permit Tokyo to play only 
modest roles in U.N. peacekeeping operations. We do not have the luxury 
of that kind of time in dealing with North Korea.
  I urge the Government of Japan to demonstrate the resolve exhibited 
by our colleagues in Bonn. If it does so, the United States will then 
be in a position to support Japan's permanent membership in the 
Security Council.


                           amendment no. 2278

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2278 for Mr. McCain.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At an appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Peace in Cambodia promotes stability in Southeast Asia.
       (2) The newly democratic nation of Cambodia is engaged in a 
     continuing military struggle against the Khmer Rouge.
       (3) Peace talks between the government of Cambodia and the 
     Khmer Rouge have repeatedly broken down.
       (4) The Cambodian Parliament took action on July 6, 1994 to 
     outlaw the Khmer Rouge.
       (5) Ceding any position in the freely elected government of 
     Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge is not in the interest of the 
     Cambodian people and is incompatible with a constructive 
     U.S.-Cambodia relationship.
       (6) Cambodian officials have requested military assistance 
     from a number of nations, including the United States.
       (7) The U.S. administration, in consultation with its 
     allies, is in the process of determining the appropriate type 
     and level of U.S. military assistance to Cambodia.
       (8) Congress is concerned that absent proper training, 
     professionalism and adequate salaries, providing Cambodian 
     forces with arms and ammunition will not be beneficial.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) In concert with interested democratic nations, the U.S. 
     should provide non-combat military training assistance to the 
     newly democratic government of Cambodia.
       (2) Military Assistance should include efforts to establish 
     an orderly and equitable promotion process, establish an 
     effective command structure, establish a viable and effective 
     system of military justice, establish effective logistics, 
     establish modern communications networks, establish 
     dependable accounting procedures, promote human rights and 
     respect for the rule of law and promote respect for civilian 
     leadership of the military.
       (3) The President should make every effort to fully utilize 
     requested 1994 and 1995 levels of IMET for Cambodia to expand 
     the program beyond its current scope.
       (4) The President should consider qualified Cambodians for 
     admission to U.S. military academies.
       (5) The President should dispatch as soon as possible a 
     military attache to the U.S. Embassy in Cambodia.
       (6) Lethal assistance should not be provided to Cambodia 
     until such time as the President can certify the 
     professionalization of the Cambodian Armed Forces.
       (7) No military assistance should be provided the Cambodian 
     Armed Forces if the Government includes members of the Khmer 
     Rouge or if the Constitution promulgated on September 24, 
     1993 fails.
       (8) No military assistance should be provided in concert 
     with the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea.
       (9) The President should convey to Thailand United States 
     concern over the continued support for the Khmer Rouge by 
     elements of the Thai military and to urge the Thai Government 
     to intensify its efforts to terminate that support, in 
     accordance with the Paris Peace Accords.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment that I am offering today 
encourages the President to provide non-lethal military assistance to 
Cambodia as it seeks to defeat on the battlefield a force which has 
refused to compete at the ballot box--the Khmer Rouge.
  It specifies non-combat military training assistance to help Cambodia 
do the following: establish an orderly and equitable promotion process, 
establish an effective command structure, establish a viable and 
effective system of military justice, establish effective logistics, 
establish modern communications networks, establish dependable 
accounting procedures, promote human rights and respect for the rule of 
law and promote respect for civilian leadership of the military.
  The amendment further calls on the President to fully utilize 
requested 1994 and 1995 levels of IMET for Cambodia and to expand the 
current program beyond its current scope of language training. It calls 
on him to admit qualified Cambodians to United States military 
academies and urges him to dispatch as soon as possible a military 
attache to the United States Embassy in Cambodia.
  There are issues that are deserving of greater attention than our 
policy toward Cambodia. Yet there are few causes more compelling than 
that of assisting the newly democratic government of Cambodia as it 
attempts to put a heart-rendering history of brutality and civil war 
behind it.
  The success of Cambodia's democratic experiment and its success in 
defending democracy against armed opposition also have geopolitical 
significance. A breakdown of the governing institutions in Cambodia and 
a return to a wider civil war may once again inflame tensions between 
Vietnam and China, a development that in the last decade led to a 
Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. Vietnam has the potential to become 
an engine of economic growth in east Asia. War in Cambodia is in no 
one's best interest.
  Recent reports already indicate that the struggle against the Khmer 
Rouge has begun to turn against the Cambodian government forces. It has 
lost control of key Khmer Rouge strongholds held by government forces 
only months ago. It is now in control of less territory than when it 
began its offensive reports of corruption and ineptitude cast doubt on 
the possibility of a favorable turn in the war.
  In its time of crisis, the government of Cambodia has approached 
those it considers its best friends, including the United States, for 
assistance. We should support their efforts with the best that our 
Nation has to offer.
  It is premature to speak about supplying the Cambodians with weapons 
and ammunition. But the Cambodian armed forces could certainly benefit 
from access to United States military doctrine and expertise. Through 
International Military Education and Training [IMET], access to our 
military academies, the appointment of a military attache to the 
embassy in Phnom Phenh, and other selected in-country assistance, we 
can provide the assistance Cambodia needs.
  But let me be clear. Although the United States and our allies may be 
able to assist with know-how, the real work must be done by the 
Cambodians themselves. Administration officials and some of my 
colleagues have expressed reservations about becoming involved once 
again in a conflict in Southeast Asia. Their reservations are well-
founded. We must stay engaged in Cambodia. It is a priority. But it is 
not a national security interest high enough to warrant risks to U.S. 
servicemen and women.
  The recent battles for Pailin and Anlong Veng illustrated disturbing 
weaknesses in Cambodia's armed forces. According to press reports, 
despite their superior numbers, government forces retreated in the face 
of the KR attack and in their flight nearly lost control of the 
nation's second largest city. The most disturbing aspect of this 
incident was that, far from being a tactical retreat, it was apparently 
led by commanding officers deserting their posts.
  It is no surprise that Cambodian officers were the first to flee. 
There are far too many of them to be adequately trained. At last count, 
the officer corps comprised roughly 60 percent of the 160,000 man 
Cambodian military. King Sihanouk himself has referred to Cambodia's 
command structure as an inverse pyramid. Reports are that in lieu of 
regular pay, some troops have received promotions. Others have 
apparently paid for extra stripes. Reform of this system is essential 
to an orderly command structure and I believe the United States may be 
able to offer some assistance in this regard.
  Until the issue of corruption is settled, lethal assistance is not an 
option. We simply cannot supply arms that may end up in the hands of 
the Khmer Rouge, on the black market or in the hands of soldiers 
engaged in illegal activity. As long as there is an economic incentive 
and no judicial disincentive for corruption, such end uses are not 
unlikely.
  An effective first step would be a survey of the Cambodian military 
education system. One way to effectively combat corruption is to better 
understand how soldiers are trained. Once we understand this, we may be 
able to provide advice on how to build better institutions, from the 
ground up if necessary.
  Selected officers can be brought to the United States to train under 
IMET. To date IMET assistance for Cambodia has been used for a very 
limited amount of English language training. Although proficiency in 
English is a necessary prerequisite for further training, the focus of 
IMET ought to be on helping Cambodia reform its military into an 
effective fighting force. There are other sources for funding language 
training.
  Cambodia has attempted in the past to acquire the assistance it needs 
through North Korea. I have been critical of this choice of allies in 
the past, and I would reiterate my words of caution to the government 
of Cambodia. There are more appropriate allies for a new democracy. 
Western nations will find it impossible to provide assistance in 
concert with the outlaw regime of North Korea.
  At the same time, those of us in the West, the United States, France, 
Australia and others must give careful consideration to Cambodian pleas 
for assistance. The trips to Pyongyang by senior military officials 
last spring were attempts to address the real needs of the Cambodian 
armed forces. If we cannot move expeditiously to provide the necessary 
assistance, we can expect them to go to the powers that can. Not only 
must we make clear that North Korea is an unacceptable ally, we must 
provide them with an alternative.
  In addition to drawing attention to the needs of the Cambodian 
military, the amendment that I am offering calls on the President to 
raise with the Government of Thailand support within the Thai military 
for the Khmer Rouge. All of our assistance will be for nothing, if 
outside support for the Khmer Rouge does not cease, including the 
illegal trading in gems and timber that flourishes along the border.
  I am pleased to see that the Appropriations committee has followed up 
on the concerns expressed in the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act by making military training assistance to Thailand subject to 
formal congressional oversight. I am also pleased that the committee ha 
required from the Secretary of State a report on Thai military support 
for the KR. This will give the members of the Senate ample opportunity 
to see how well Thailand has lived up to the pledges it freely 
undertook as a party to the Paris Peace Accords.
  Finally, I want to make one more plea on behalf of the Cambodian 
people. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation enabling the 
President to grant Most Favored Nation status to Cambodia. MFN for 
Cambodia is non-controversial and non-partisan. The administration has 
proposed attaching it to the GATT implementing legislation. In my view 
this would not be inappropriate and I urge the Finance Committee when 
it begins the mark-up process of the implementing legislation next week 
to include MFN for Cambodia.
  The Cambodian people need our assistance. I hope we can help them as 
they seek to develop a free market democracy and a responsible, 
effective armed forces. I would like to thank the managers of the bill 
for enabling the Senate to address these issues.


                           amendment no. 2283

(Purpose: To encourage Germany to assume full and active participation 
   in international peacekeeping activities, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2283 for Mr. Cohen.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ____. POLICY REGARDING GERMAN PARTICIPATION IN 
                   INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) for more than four decades following the Second World 
     War, Germany was a divided nation;
       (2) notwithstanding the creation of the Federal Republic of 
     Germany on September 7, 1949, and the German Democratic 
     Republic on October 7, 1949, the Four Allied Powers retained 
     rights and responsibilities for Germany as a whole;
       (3) the Federal Republic of Germany acceded to the United 
     Nations Charter without reservation, ``accept[ing] the 
     obligations contained in the Charter . . . and solemnly 
     undertak[ing] to carry them out'', and was admitted as a 
     member of the United Nations on September 26, 1973;
       (4) the Federal Republic of Germany's admission to the 
     United Nations did not alter Germany's division nor infringe 
     upon the rights and responsibilities of the Four Allied 
     Powers for Germany as a whole;
       (5) these circumstances created impediments to the Federal 
     Republic of Germany fulfilling all obligations undertaken 
     upon its accession to the United Nations Charter;
       (6) Germany was unified within the Federal Republic of 
     Germany on October 3, 1990;
       (7) with the entry into force of the Final Settlement With 
     Respect to Germany on March 4, 1991, the unified Germany 
     assumed its place in the community of nations as a fully 
     sovereign national state;
       (8) German unification and attainment of full sovereignty 
     and the Federal Republic's history of more than four decades 
     of democracy have removed impediments that have prevented its 
     full participation in international efforts to maintain or 
     restore international peace and security;
       (9) international peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace-
     enforcing operations are becoming increasingly important for 
     the maintenance and restoration of international peace and 
     security;
       (10) United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali 
     has called for the ``full participation of Germany in 
     peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace-enforcing measures'';
       (11) the North Atlantic Council, meeting in ministerial 
     session on June 4, 1992, and December 17, 1992, stated the 
     preparedness of the North Atlantic Alliance to ``support, on 
     a case-by-case basis in accordance with our own procedures, 
     peacekeeping activities under the responsibility of the 
     Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe'' and 
     ``peacekeeping operations under the authority of the United 
     Nations Security Council'';
       (12) the Federal Republic of Germany participated in these 
     North Atlantic Council meetings and fully associated itself 
     with the resulting communiques;
       (13) the Western European Union (WEU) Ministerial Council, 
     in the Petersberg Declaration adopted June 19, 1992, declared 
     that ``As the WEU develops its operational capabilities in 
     accordance with the Maastricht Declaration, we are prepared 
     to support, on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with 
     our own procedures, the effective implementation of conflict-
     prevention and crisis-management measures, including 
     peacekeeping activities of the CSCE or the United Nations 
     Security Council'';
       (14) the Federal Republic of Germany presided over this 
     Western European Union Ministerial Council meeting and fully 
     associated itself with the Petersberg Declaration;
       (15) the Federal Republic of Germany, by virtue of its 
     political, economic, and military status and potential, will 
     play an important role in determining the success or failure 
     of future international efforts to maintain or restore 
     international peace and security;
       (16) the Federal Constitution Court of Germany has ruled 
     that the Basic Law of Germany permits the Armed Forces of 
     Germany to participate in international military operations, 
     including combat operations, conducted under a system of 
     collective security, including the United Nations, the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Western European Union;
       (17) Germany is currently engaged in a debate on the proper 
     role for the German military in the international community;
       (18) one important element in the German debate is the 
     attitude of the international community toward full German 
     participation in international peacekeeping, peacemaking, and 
     peace-enforcing operations;
       (19) it is, therefore, appropriate for the United States, 
     as a member of the international community and as a permanent 
     member of the United Nations Security Council, to express its 
     position on the question of such German participation; and
       (20) distinctions between peacekeeping, peacemaking, and 
     peace-enforcing measures are becoming blurred, making 
     absolute separation of such measures difficult, if not 
     impossible.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) an appropriate response under current circumstances to 
     Germany's past would be for Germany to participate fully in 
     international efforts to maintain or restore international 
     peace and security; and
       (2) the President should strongly encourage Germany, in 
     light of its increasing political and economic influence, its 
     successful integration into international institutions, and 
     its commitment to peace and democratic ideals, to assume full 
     and active participation in international peacekeeping, 
     peacemaking, and peace-enforcing operations.

  Mr. COHEN. Earlier this week, Madam President, the German 
constitutional court issued a historic ruling putting to rest once and 
for all the assertion that Germany's Basic Law prevents it from 
engaging in any military operations beyond defense of NATO territory.
  The court, affirming what the vast majority of German constitutional 
scholars had long maintained, ruled that German armed forces can 
participate in international military operations, including combat 
operations, conducted under NATO, the United Nations, or the Western 
European Union, so long as a majority of the Bundestag approve.
  The court's decision removes the perception of a legal impediment to 
German participation in such operations and makes clear that political 
will is the primary factor determining whether Germany will fulfill its 
international responsibilities.
  When the Federal Republic joined the United Nations 20 years ago, it 
did so without reservation. The Federal Republic's deed of accession to 
the U.N. states that it ``accepts the obligations contained in the 
Charter of the U.N. and solemnly undertakes to carry them out.'' Yet, 
while it has contributed to U.N. peacekeeping efforts financially and 
occasionally with military personnel for humanitarian functions, the 
Federal Republic declared itself unable to fully participate 
notwithstanding its obligations and its economic and military 
resources.

  Similarly, while the Federal Republic has been a faithfull ally 
within NATO for nearly four decades, it has hesitated now that NATO is 
extending its operations eastward in accord with its new mission to 
support international peacekeeping.
  The same is true with regard to the Western European Union, which 
last year also declared its intent to support international 
peacekeeping operations--ironically at a meeting at which Germany 
presided.
  This hesitation was understandable so long as Germany was dided 
nation, lacking full sovereignty and, in the first decades after the 
war, still coming to grips with the Nazi era. But Germany's situation 
and status have changed, removing these impediments to the Federal 
Republic's full and active participation in international military 
operations.
  To their credit, Chancellor Kohl, Defense Minister Ruehe, and other 
prominent political figures in Germany have worked to enable the 
Federal Republic to meet these responsibilities. They have gradually 
enhanced Germany's level of involvement in selected military missions. 
This has included deployment of German destroyers to the Adriatic to 
help monitor the U.N. embargo on the former Yugoslavia, deployment of a 
small German contingent to Somalia, and German military personnel 
helping to operate NATO AWACS planes during the Gulf War and to monitor 
the Bosnian no-fly zone.
  While these efforts by the German government are to be commended, it 
is disturbing that some Germans, particularly in the political 
opposition, have argued that even if the constitutional question were 
settled--as it now has been--Germany will for reasons of history not be 
able to participate fully in international military operations.

  Some have even argued that German troops cannot be sent anywhere that 
was overrun or occupied by German forces during the Second World War--
an area that extends from the Atlantic to the Caucasus, from the 
Maghreb to the Barents Sea--an area, moreover, which includes many of 
the regions now undergoing or expected to undergo communal, ethnic, and 
religious conflict. Such an effort to circumscribe Germany's 
international role would essentially nullify the constitutional ruling 
issued this week.
  Madam President, Germany cannot hide from history, but neither can it 
hide behind history.
  We cannot accept the argument that the events of history forever bind 
nations and their leaders. One of the principal reasons war has 
returned to the Balkans is that leaders there insist upon dredging up 
old grievances to justify digging fresh graves.
  Germany--whose citizens have forthrightly grappled with the 
aggression and atrocities of the Nazi era, built a solidly democratic 
state, and securely anchored Germany in international institutions--
should not now invoke the past to avoid the responsibility to build a 
better future.
  Claims by some in Germany that the world community does not want 
Germany to fulfill its obligations in the security sphere 
mischaracterize international opinions in an effort to manipulate the 
German domestic debate, and we have an obligation to set the record 
straight. It is especially important that we do so now, since the 
constitutional court's ruling will prompt many Germans to re-examine 
the political factors affecting potential German military operations.
  The amendment I am offering would express the sense of the Senate 
that an appropriate response to Germany's past would be for it to 
participate fully in international efforts to restore or maintain 
international peace and security. And it calls on the President to 
strongly encourage Germany to assume full and active participation in 
peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace-enforcing operations--that is, in 
the full spectrum of international military operations from blue-helmet 
missions to future Desert Storm-type operations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a press release issued by the Federal Constitutional Court 
regarding its decision.
  There being no objection, the press release was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

  Press Release Issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, No. 29/94

       In the proceedings on the dispute over the deployment of 
     German forces the Federal Constitutional Court (Second Panel) 
     has ruled that the Federal Republic of Germany is at liberty 
     to assign German armed forces in operations mounted by the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] and Western 
     European Union [WEU] to implement resolutions of the Security 
     Council of the United Nations [UN]. The same applies to the 
     assignment of German contingents to peace-keeping forces of 
     the UN. However, the Basic Law requires the Federal 
     Government to obtain--in principle the prior--explicit 
     approval of the German Bundestag. The ruling was sought by 
     the SDP and FDP groups in the Bundestag.
       According to Article 24 (2) of the Basic Law, the 
     Federation may become a party to a system of collective 
     security and in so doing consent to limitations upon its 
     sovereign powers. The Federal Constitutional Court also sees 
     in this power conferred by the Basic Law the constitutional 
     foundation for an assumption of responsibilities that are 
     typically associated with membership of such a system of 
     collective security. Hence German servicemen may be deployed 
     within the scope of UN peacekeeping missions even if the 
     latter are authorized to use force. The objections submitted 
     by the applicants on constitutional grounds to the 
     participation of German forces in the UNOSOM II mission in 
     Somalia, in the NATO/WEU naval operation in the Adriatic to 
     monitor a UN embargo on the Federative Republic of 
     Yugoslavia, and in the AWACS monitoring of the ban on flights 
     in the airspace over Bosnia-Herzegovina, likewise imposed by 
     the United Nations, are therefore rejected. German servicemen 
     may also be integrated into NATO formations which are 
     deployed within the framework of UN operations. This, 
     according to the Court, is covered by parliament's approval 
     of Germany's accession to NATO and the UN Charter.
       The Court also finds, however, after thoroughly analysing 
     the provisions of the Basic Law relating to the status of the 
     armed forces in the constitutional system, that the Federal 
     Government is required to obtain the Bundestag's explicit 
     approval for each deployment of German armed forces. Such 
     approval must in principle be obtained prior to their 
     deployment. The Bundestag must decide on the deployment of 
     armed forces with a simple majority. Once parliament has 
     given its approval, the decision on the modalities of 
     deployment, especially the question of the size of the force 
     and the duration of their deployment and on necessary 
     coordination within and with the governing bodies of 
     international organizations, falls within the government's 
     sphere of competence. The nature and extent of parliament's 
     involvement is for parliament itself to decide within the 
     scope of these constitutional constraints.
       A violation of Article 59 (2) of the Basic Law could not be 
     found because the Panel's votes were equally divided. The 
     applicants had argued that the deployment of NATO forces 
     under the auspices of the United Nations constituted a 
     substantive change in the NATO Treaty and that any such 
     change required the approval of parliament under Article 59 
     (2) of the Basic Law. Four members of the Panel, whose 
     opinion carries the decision, take the view that the members 
     of NATO, by taking the contentious measures, had clearly not 
     done so with the intention of already extending the NATO 
     Treaty to include further tasks. In the opinion of the other 
     four members of the Panel, the Federal Government was 
     involved in a progressive extension of the NATO Treaty in a 
     manner which threatened to undermine the participatory rights 
     of the Bundestag. They held that this constituted a direct 
     threat to those rights.
       With this decision the Federal Constitutional Court has 
     recognized the long-disputed admissibility of the deployment 
     of German forces under a United Nations mandate but at the 
     same time made their deployment in each individual case 
     subject to the approval of the German Bundestag.
       Justices Bockenforde and Kruis explained in a dissenting 
     opinion that the application of the FDP parliamentary group 
     ought to have been declared inadmissible and rejected.


                           amendment no. 2286

   (Purpose: To allocate funds for support of human rights and other 
              nongovernmental organizations in Indonesia)

  Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2286 for Mr. Wellstone.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:


  support for human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in 
                               Indonesia

       Sec.  . Of the funds appropriated by this Act, $250,000 
     shall be made available to support nongovernmental human 
     rights organizations in Indonesia, and $250,000 shall be made 
     available to support nongovernmental environmental 
     organizations to assess or otherwise address acute 
     environmental problems, particularly those affecting 
     indigenous people, in Indonesia.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the amendment I am offering today is 
designed to provide modest but critical assistance to non-governmental 
human rights and environmental organizations in Indonesia. I am 
particularly interested in ensuring that adequate funds be made 
available to organizations which monitor, and act to improve, 
humanitarian and environmental conditions in East Timor. I ask that 
Senators Simon, Pell, and Harkin be added as original cosponsors of the 
amendment.
  Late last month, the Senate voted to remove a provision from this 
bill which would have prohibited the use of U.S. military equipment 
provided to the Government of Indonesia from being used by Indonesian 
security forces in East Timor. Believe it or not, despite the 
Indonesian Government's abysmal human rights record, including 
persistent abuses by its security forces against innocent civilians, 
the Senate voted to remove this provision from the bill. This 
amendment, along with the one being offered by Senator Leahy which I 
have cosponsored, will send a strong message to the Indonesian 
Government that they cannot continue to allow their security forces to 
abuse their people. The Leahy amendment, developed with the help of 
Senator Feingold and others, codifies current United States policy 
prohibiting the sale or licensure for export of small arms and crowd 
control items, until the administration certifies to Congress that the 
Indonesians are: First, reducing their troop presence in East Timor; 
second, complying with human rights conditions; and, third, 
participating constructively in efforts at the United Nations to 
peacefully resolve the status of East Timor. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  As I have said, my amendment is designed to send a strong signal of 
United States support for non-governmental organizations working to 
address the persistent problems of human rights abuses and 
environmental degradation in Indonesia, including East Timor. It 
provides $250,000 to non-governmental human rights organizations, and 
$250,000 to non-governmental environmental organizations, to support 
their important work.
  I do not need to rehearse here the long and sad litany of human 
rights abuses in recent years by Indonesian security forces in East 
Timor. But I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my 
statement a number of documents on human rights conditions there, 
including reports from today's newswires about the brutal beating of 
student protesters in Dili yesterday, and statements by Asia Watch on 
the incident and on human rights conditions in East Timor generally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The students involved in yesterday's incident were 
reportedly beaten mercilessly with clubs by security forces for 
exercising their right to peaceful political protest; one of the worst 
such violent incidents in almost 3 years. Ironically, this incident 
took place at the same time that the United Nation's Special Rapporteur 
on Torture and Arbitrary Killings is in East Timor to look into the 
follow-up investigation regarding those still missing after the 1991 
massacre, and other killings, when one might have expected the security 
forces to be on their best behavior. This modest amount of assistance, 
coupled with continuing political support from the United States and 
others, should be very helpful to the coalition of human rights, legal 
aid, and other organizations in Jakarta and elsewhere who are working 
to monitor and improve human rights conditions there. It is a concrete 
sign to them and others fighting for human rights that they are not 
alone, and that the United States will not stand idly by while 
Indonesian security forces continue to abuse the East Timorese people.
  The amendment provides $250,000 for assessment of acute and urgent 
environmental problems in Indonesia. The Indonesian Archipelago is one 
of the most biologically diverse and valuable regions on earth. It 
contains nearly 10 percent of the world's rain forests and almost 40 
percent of the regional rain forests. And it is second only to Brazil 
in the rate of decline of such forests due to logging, agriculture, 
mining, and other commercial uses. Pristine rain forests unique in all 
the world and populated by indigenous peoples--such as the 350,000 
square kilometer region known as Irian Jaya--are being ravaged by 
mining and logging interests. This funding is designed to complement 
existing efforts by non-governmental organizations to assess and 
address environmental degradation there.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I am grateful to the 
manager of the bill, Senator Leahy, for agreeing to accept it. I urge 
its adoption.

                               Exhibit 1

                       [From Human Rights Watch]

            Indonesian Troops Clash With East Timor Students

                          (By Jeremy Wagstaff)

       Jakarta, July 14 (Reuter).--Indonesian security forces 
     attacked student protesters in Dili on Thursday, beating 
     demonstrators with clubs in the worst such incident in the 
     troubled territory in nearly three years, residents said.
       Speaking by telephone from Dili, residents said about 20 
     students were badly injured when security forces stopped a 
     protest march less than 50 metres (yards) from its starting 
     point at the local university.
       ``They wanted to leave to campus but we did not allow them, 
     because we want them to stay there to avoid anything 
     unnecessary,'' a police spokesman said by telephone from 
     Dili. He denied there had been any beatings or arrests.
       Indonesia, which has ruled East Timor since its 1975 
     invasion, still faces widespread criticism after troops 
     gunned down demonstrators at a cemetery in November 1991. Up 
     to 200 protesters were killed.
       Security forces were still surrounding the campus on 
     Thursday where up to 300 students were holed up, shouting 
     anti-police slogans, residents said.
       More than 70 protesters were being held at a nearby 
     military barracks after fleeing the military assault, they 
     said.
       ``It has been very tense in the last two weeks and it has 
     just got worse today. The situation is critical,'' one 
     resident said by telephone from Dili.
       Local members of the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross had taken more than 20 injured to nearby hospitals, 
     according to residents. One eyewitness saw five students 
     injured, mostly from beatings.
       A spokesman at the local hospital said only one person, a 
     bystander at the clash, had been brought to the hospital.
       Indonesia has faced a dwindling guerrilla band and 
     simmering resentment against its sometimes brutal rule in the 
     mainly Catholic territory. Churchgoers last month attacked 
     two Indonesian soldiers after they abused the sacrament.
       A protest march on the local parliament resulting from the 
     incident ended peacefully on Monday, and the military have 
     vowed to discipline the two soldiers involved.
       Local church leaders have said that despite efforts by the 
     local military, security forces continued to abuse the 
     population of 750,000 in the former Portuguese colony.
       The situation had worsened in recent weeks, residents said.
       Four protesters were jailed after staging a small 
     demonstration in front of visiting journalists in April.
       Two soldiers were court-martialed for murder this year 
     after they shot dead local civilians in separate incidents. 
     Thursday's attempted protest march appeared to have been 
     prompted by a fight on Wednesday between students on the 
     university campus, when some East Timorese attacked three 
     other students for taunting two Catholic nuns. Residents said 
     the three had been badly injured and taken to the hospital.
       Residents said streets around the campus had been blocked 
     off by truckloads of military and local mobile brigades.
       A U.N. special rapporteur on torture and arbitrary 
     killings, Baore Waly Ndiaye, visited East Timor this week to 
     monitor Indonesian investigations into the 1991 massacre and 
     other killings. He said he had yet to complete his report.
                                  ____



                                      Human Rights Watch/Asia,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.

                                    Human Rights in East Timor

       Human rights Watch/Asia on Thursday called on the 
     Indonesian government to allow unhindered access to East 
     Timor by Indonesian nongovernmental human rights 
     organizations and the international press to investigate 
     today's violent dispersal of a protest march in Dili, East 
     Timor, in which several people were injured and dozens 
     arrested. The protest took place after an incident on the 
     campus of the University of East Timor when, according to 
     press reports, a group of students attacked three other 
     students who had made insulting remarks to two Catholic nuns. 
     Hundreds of students massed on the campus, planning to march 
     to the office of the provincial parliament building, but they 
     were intercepted by security forces who attacked the students 
     with clubs.
       ``From the facts thus far available, it seems as though the 
     response of the police and military, including the beating 
     and arrest of so many students, was wholly disproportionate 
     to the nature of the security problem they faced,'' said 
     Sidney Jones, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia. 
     ``Whatever the origins of the clash on campus, the students 
     had a right to assemble peacefully and march to the 
     parliament building, and it looks as though the military not 
     only violated that right but did so with excessive use of 
     force.''
       HRW/Asia said only a thorough investigation by respected 
     human rights organizations such as the Indonesian Legal Aid 
     Institute Foundation (YLBHI) and the Institute for Public and 
     Social Advocacy (ELSAM) would enable the facts surrounding 
     the incident to come to light. These NGOs would also be able 
     to access the response of the security forces and the local 
     government.
       The incident took place a day after a discussion on East 
     Timor at a meeting of the United Nations Special Committee on 
     Decolonization. At that meeting, Human Rights Watch/Asia 
     delivered a brief statement on the human rights situation in 
     East Timor, the text of which follows:
       The lengths to which the Indonesian government went to try 
     and prevent the Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET) 
     from taking place in Manila from May 31 to June 2 reflect its 
     efforts to control freedom of expression not only inside 
     Indonesia but beyond its own borders.


           access to east timor by human rights organizations

       Despite the claims of Indonesian Foreign Minister in early 
     May that he was inviting Amnesty International and Asia Watch 
     (now Human Rights Watch/Asia) to visit East Timor, no human 
     rights organizations have been given access since Asia Watch 
     and the International Commission of Jurists were allowed to 
     attend selected sessions of the Xanana Gusmao trial in March 
     1993. Human Rights Watch/Asia was explicitly refused 
     permission to visit East Timor in June 1994.
       France Libertes, a human rights foundation headed by Mme. 
     Danielle Mitterand, has also been refused access. One of the 
     people invited to the Manila conference but subsequently 
     denied a visa by the Philippines government (at Indonesia's 
     request), Mme. Mitterand had asked the Indonesian government 
     through private channels in September 1993 whether she and 
     the Paris-based International League for Human Rights could 
     visit East Timor; she was told that it was ``not the right 
     time'' and to wait another six months. After six months, 
     Frances Libertes made another request, this time not 
     mentioning Mme. Mitterand's name. The request was turned 
     down.
       It is not only international human rights organizations 
     that have difficulty getting to East Timor; some Indonesian 
     human rights organizations do as well. In early May, a 
     seminar on the topic of sustainable development and the 
     environment was due to take place at the University of East 
     Timor, co-sponsored by a number of Indonesian NGOs including 
     members of a coalition called the Joint Committee for the 
     Defense of the East Timorese (Komite Bersama Pembelaan 
     Masyarakat Timor Timur.) The coalition includes some of 
     Indonesia's most respected NGOs: the Legal Aid Institute 
     (Yayaysan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia); the Indonesian 
     Council of Churches (Parpem Persekutuan Gereja-Gereja 
     Indonesia or PGI); the Institute for Social Advocacy and 
     Study (Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat or ELSAM); and 
     the Catholic organization, LPPS Caritas Katolik. A week 
     before the seminar was to take place, the military commander 
     for the region that includes East Timor called the university 
     rector and told him the conference would have to be 
     postponed. When it eventually did take place, the Indonesian 
     NGOs were not permitted to attend, nor was Florentino 
     Sarnmento of ETADEP, an East Timorese environmental NGO.


                               conclusion

       In short, Mr. Chairman, East Timor remains a troubled place 
     where human rights abuses continue. Greater openness--defined 
     as freedom for East Timorese to gather in private houses 
     without permits and to freely express their own opinions, 
     unhampered access by foreign journalists, less control over 
     foreign visitors, and access by international human rights 
     organizations--would almost certainly help prevent such 
     abuses and ensure some form of redress for the victims. But 
     if the last few months are any indication, the trend is not 
     toward openness but the reverse. The closure on June 21 of 
     three important news weeklies in Jakarta has implications for 
     East Timor, because it suggests a desire to control 
     information that the politically powerful find offensive. 
     Restricting information prevents problems from being aired 
     and solutions from being found on all fronts, not just human 
     rights. For East Timor as well as Indonesia, that may prove 
     very damaging.
                                  ____

         Human Rights Watch/Asia,
                                     Washington, DC, July 14, 1994

Statement of Human Rights Watch/Asia to the Decolonization Committee of 
                           the United Nations

       Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address 
     this committee. As you know, Human Rights Watch/Asia, 
     formerly Asia Watch, takes no position on the political 
     status of East Timor, but it believes that full information 
     on the human rights situation there must inform the 
     committee's deliberations and discussions on the issue of 
     decolonization.
       East Timor is neither a Rwanda nor a Bosnia. It is not a 
     place where massive carnage is taking place nor does it have 
     concentration camps with emaciated prisoners. It is a place, 
     however, where arbitrary detention and torture are routine, 
     and where basic freedoms of expression, association and 
     assembly are non-existent. Disappearances and politically-
     motivated killings have become relatively rare, but when 
     cases are reported, controls on information and access to the 
     territory are such that it is virtually impossible, even for 
     Indonesian non-governmental organizations, to conduct 
     investigations that would meet international standards for 
     impartiality and thoroughness. The Indonesian Human Rights 
     Commission, which for all its many flaws, has at least been a 
     useful sounding board for complaints from the Indonesian 
     public, had not, as of June 1994, visited East Timor or 
     looked into any of the many reported cases of human rights 
     violations there.
       The Indonesian government has taken some steps for which it 
     deserves credit. We welcome, for example, the visit to East 
     Timor just concluded of Mr. Bacre Waly N'Daiye, a 
     distinguished Senegalese lawyer who is currently Special 
     Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions for the United 
     Nations Commission on Human Rights. At the same time, 
     however, we note that East Timorese sources tell us 
     repeatedly of the extensive security preparations taken by 
     the Indonesian military in advance of high-profile visits of 
     foreigners to East Timor. These preparations often involve 
     the rounding up of potential ``trouble-makers''--as we 
     understand happened before Mr. N'Daiye's visit; warnings to 
     residents in areas the group is likely to visit; and booking 
     by officials of most of the rooms in either of the two hotels 
     in Dili where the visitor is likely to stay.
       On June 30, the Indonesian government, through the 
     intercession of the International Committee of the Red Cross 
     (ICRC) also allowed the family of resistance leader Xanana 
     Gusmao to visit him in Cipinang Prison, Jakarta. It was the 
     first time in almost twenty years that Gusmao was able to see 
     his wife. Emilia, and their two children, all residents of 
     Melbourne, Australia. The humanitarian gesture was 
     welcome--but it came after Gusmao had been in prolonged 
     solitary confinement in Cipinang, without access to 
     visitors or newspapers, allegedly for smuggling out 
     letters to supporters. The United Nations Standard Minimum 
     Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, in Article 37, state 
     that prisoners should be allowed ``under necessary 
     supervision'' to communicate with family and friends and 
     to be kept informed regularly of news.
       In this connection, we regret the decision of the 
     Indonesian government to move six East Timorese sentenced in 
     connection with events in October and November 1991 from Dili 
     to Semarang, Central Java, where they will have no access 
     whatsoever to friends and family. The transfer of prisoners, 
     including Gregorio da Cunha Saldanha, Francisco Miranda 
     Branco and Jacinto dos Neves Raimundo Alves, all sentenced in 
     connection with the peaceful demonstration on November 12, 
     1991 on which Indonesian troops opened fire, took place on 
     June 9, 1994.
       Finally, we welcome the decision of the Indonesian 
     government to allow seven East Timorese students who had 
     sought asylum at embassies in Jakarta to leave for Lisbon 
     last December under ICRC auspices.
       These positive steps notwithstanding, the human rights 
     situation in East Timor continues to be grim.


                             disappearances

       As we noted above, new cases of disappearances are rare. 
     But there are hundreds of outstanding, unresolved cases. No 
     progress has been made on accounting for those who remain 
     missing in the aftermath of the November 1991 Dili massacre, 
     for example, or, indeed, for more recent incidents.
       In May 1994, relatives of Gaspar Luis Xavier Carlos in Dili 
     revealed to a visitor that Gaspar remained missing after his 
     arrest by military intelligence (Satuan Gerakan Intelejen or 
     SGI) on September 3, 1992, just prior to the summit meeting 
     in Jakarta of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Aged 30 at the 
     time of his disappearance, Gaspar was an employee in Dili of 
     a national bank, Bank Bumi Daya. His family was told by the 
     military that he was arrested in connections with security 
     measures being taken in connection with the Jakarta summit. 
     Gaspar, other sources said, had been planning to go to 
     Jakarta with a few others to present information to NAM 
     delegates about the situation in East Timor, but security 
     officers became aware of their plans. In addition to Gaspar, 
     a man named Malacu is reported to have been arrested and 
     severely tortured; his fate is not known. Gaspar was taken to 
     the SGI office in Colmera, Dili and from there a few days 
     later to the Comarca prison in Balide, Dili. Shortly 
     thereafter, he was taken out of the prison at night and has 
     not been seen since. The family has made repeated inquiries 
     to the military in Dili without success, and recently sought 
     help from Indonesia's National Commission on Human Rights. 
     Gaspar's wife and two children remain in Dili. His employers, 
     Bank Bumi Daya, fired him after his arrest, and the family 
     has no regular source of income.
       In its report to the United Nations Commission on Human 
     Rights, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary 
     Disappearances reported that of twenty disappearance cases 
     from Indonesia and East Timor submitted by the Working Group 
     to the Indonesian government for clarification, the 
     government reported that five had returned home. ``In the 
     remaining 15 cases, the names of the persons contained in 
     the Government's reply did not correspond to the names of 
     the missing persons contained in the lists of the Working 
     Group.''\1\
     \1\Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on 
     Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, E/CN, 4/1994/26, 
     December 22, 1993, p. 66.
       It should be noted that in its resolution 1993/97 in March 
     1993, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged the Government 
     of Indonesia to invite the Special Rapporteur on the Question 
     of Torture, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary 
     or Arbitrary Executions, the Working Group on Arbitrary 
     Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary 
     Disappearances. The Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions 
     has just left East Timor, but no invitation has been extended 
     to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or the Working 
     Group on Disappearances.


                        extrajudicial executions

       Several cases of summary executions have been reported to 
     HRW/Asia since our last presentation to this committee, 
     although because of lack of access, we have not been able to 
     independently confirm the incidents. Even it the facts as 
     stated could be verified, it is possible in the two cases 
     described below that there were circumstances, not known to 
     HRW/Asia, that could affect the characterization of these 
     killings as extrajudicial executions. But it is important to 
     recognize that East Timorese in Lautem reported these 
     incidents as such to Indonesian human rights monitors in 
     Jakarta, suggesting, at the very least, that a full 
     investigation should be undertaken, with prosecution of those 
     responsible should the executions be confirmed.
       In the first case, in the hamlet of Assalaino, Lautem 
     district, a farmer and father of four named Tito Teles, aged 
     thirty-three, was reportedly killed by members of army 
     battalion 611 on November 1, 1993 as he was leaving his home 
     to go hunting. He had reportedly obtained a permit from 
     security forces in the region to hunt in an area known as the 
     ``free zone'', as he had on two other occasions. People in 
     the village heard him calling his dog as he was moving toward 
     the zone, but special forces hidden along the path from the 
     village opened fire. When the dog returned alone to Tito's 
     house, villagers questioned the security forces who claimed 
     they had no knowledge of Tito's whereabouts. Only after 
     Tito's body was discovered on November 2 did they acknowledge 
     the shooting.
       In the second case, a fifteen-year-old elementary school 
     student named Ilario Rodrigues, son of Teofilo and Benefito 
     Rodrigues of the hamlet of Foema-a, Souro village, Lautem, 
     was shot and killed on July 30, 1993 by men described by 
     villagers as army commandos as he was going into a nearby 
     garden to cut down coconuts to sell. He was a student of 
     State Elementary School No. 6 in Souro. His body was 
     immediately buried by those who shot him; it was exhumed the 
     next day by his neighbors. It is not clear why he was killed.


                             accountability

       The Indonesian commander in East Timor, Colonel Johny 
     Lumintang, had disciplined some Indonesian soldiers 
     responsible for abuses; two soldiers were court-martialled 
     for murder earlier this year, according to a July 5 Reuters 
     dispatch, and two others have been detained after 
     committing sacrilege in a Catholic church in Remexio by 
     spitting out the sacrament during communion. The incident 
     occurred on June 28, 1994. (Eleven villagers, it should be 
     noted, were then detained for then attacking the 
     soldiers.)
       It would be a welcome development if soldiers were 
     routinely held accountable for abuses in East Timor, and it 
     will be important for the human rights community, both 
     Indonesian and international, to monitor the prosecutions and 
     punishments in the above cases. But until the climate of fear 
     substantially changes in East Timor and people feel both free 
     to register complaints against members of the armed forces 
     and confident in the legal system in place there, many 
     soldiers will continue to act with impunity.


                   controls on freedom of expression

       A single incident demonstrates the extent of restrictions 
     freedom of expression in East Timor. From April 12 to 15, 
     1994, twenty-six foreign journalists were taken on an 
     official visit to East Timor at the invitation of the 
     Indonesian government. (Over seventeen years after 
     Indonesia's annexation of East Timor, access to the territory 
     remains restricted, and journalists must apply for special 
     travel permits.) The day before they left, on April 14 at 
     about 7:00 a.m., a small group of East Timorese held a pro-
     independence demonstration in front of the Mahkota Hotel in 
     Dili where the journalists were staying.
       The demonstration became the focus of most of their 
     subsequent articles, to the Indonesian government's great 
     indignation. On April 17, a military spokesman in Dili, Major 
     L. Simbolon, accused the journalists of ``defecting'' from 
     the official agenda and conducting an ``investigation'' 
     rather than looking at ``existing reality.''
       But it was the demonstrators who in fact represented East 
     Timor's ``existing reality.'' Following the demonstration, 
     they were briefly arrested for questioning, then released. 
     After the foreign reporters were safely out of East Timor, 
     however, the real arrests took place. On May 1, Nuno Corvelo 
     was picked up. On May 2, it was Rui Fernandes's turn. And on 
     May 8, nine more young people were arrested: Pedro de Fatima; 
     Rosalino dos Santos, twenty-two; Octavianus; Miguel de Deus, 
     aged twenty; Marcus; Pantaleao Amaral; aged eighteen; Lucas 
     dos Tilman; Anibal; and Ishak Soares, twenty-two. All are 
     Dili residents.
       A week after their arrest, their families had not been 
     informed of their whereabouts and were too frightened to ask. 
     At least six were, in fact, taken to the regional police 
     command (Polwil) in Dili; the Indonesian government never 
     acknowledged holding more than six.
       The trials of three of the eleven began on June 16. At 
     issue was not only the demonstration, but the fact that the 
     young men had taken part in an ``illegal meeting'' on April 
     13 at Pedro de Fatima's home in Kuluhun, Dili, to discuss the 
     display of pro-independence banners that the journalists 
     would be able to see. According to international standards on 
     human rights, the meeting was a peaceful exercise of freedom 
     of assembly, just as the demonstration itself was a 
     legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.
       But the Dili court saw it differently. On June 24, 
     Pentaleao Amaral, Ishak Soares and Miguel de Deus were 
     sentenced to twenty months in prison after being found guilty 
     of violating Article 154 of the criminal Code, spreading 
     hatred toward the Government of Indonesia. On July 7, 
     Rosalino dos Santos was given the same sentence for creating 
     public disorder and inciting separatist sentiments. The 
     defendants were not represented by legal counsel.

                               indonesia

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, the Senate tabled a 
committee amendment by a vote of 59 to 35 which would have placed what 
I believe were unenforceable and mischievous conditions on the sale of 
military equipment (later revised to lethal military equipment) to 
Indonesia under the Foreign Military Sales Program. I believed then, 
and believe today, that the statutory language proposed would have had 
serious, unintended consequences on our important bilateral 
relationship with Indonesia. In my judgment, this restriction would 
have resulted in Indonesia seeking other suppliers for the military 
equipment they need, and would have lessened what influence we have 
with modernizing voices in Indonesia, ultimately undercutting our 
efforts to promote American values and principles, including regard and 
respect for human rights, in Indonesia. Further, in my view it would 
inevitably have spilled over into the commercial arena with unfortunate 
consequences for the reason that the United States Munitions List 
covers literally thousands of items, including spare parts, 
communications equipment, advanced computer technology, satellites and 
other items.
  I again point out to my colleagues that this administration has 
undertaken a thorough review of our policy toward Indonesia during the 
past year. As a result, a comprehensive strategy has been developed to 
promote our Nation's vital security, political, human rights and 
economic interests with this key nation in Southeast Asia, the fourth 
largest country in the world which has worked cooperatively with the 
United States in promoting peaceful solutions to potentially dangerous 
problems in the Spratly Islands, in Cambodia and other UN peacekeeping 
operations, and in promoting nonproliferation.
  This comprehensive policy was succinctly and eloquently stated in a 
letter written by the Secretary of State to Chairman Leahy on June 29, 
1994, which I inserted in the Record during debate on this issue 2 
weeks ago. It is worth quoting this summary again:

       The United States has important economic, commercial, 
     security, human rights and political interest in Indonesia. 
     Our challenge is to develop a policy that advances all our 
     interests, that obtains positive results and reduces, to the 
     extent possible, unintended negative effects.

  Will this comprehensive policy of engagement on many fronts work to 
help us achieve our many objectives? I believe it will. To be sure 
there are some parts of it I would disagree with, and there are other 
parts with which others will disagree. Overall, however, I believe the 
administration has tried to strike a balance which will keep us engaged 
with pro-western voices within the Indonesian military and in 
Indonesia.
  It is my view that a stable, friendly Indonesia is in our Nation's 
best interest. One only has to look back 30 years to understand and 
appreciate the dangers to our Nation's interest of a return to 
instability and the politics of konfrontasi. Maintaining a friendly, 
stable Indonesia is even more important today, in the post cold war and 
post-Philippines era. We are facing many challenges in the Asian 
region. Indonesia has played and continues to play a key balancing role 
which is in our fundamental interest.
  It is also my view that a stable, friendly Indonesia offers the best 
hope for achieving a better life for all the people of Indonesia. 
Stability and engagement with the west have in part set the stage for 
economic reform, which in turn has brought about important changes in 
Indonesia. The incidence of poverty for example has been reduced from 
60 percent in 1970 to about 14 percent today, and the distribution of 
wealth in general is equivalent to that in the United States. Other 
strides have been made which have resulted in a better life for the 
men, women and children of Indonesia: education is now mandatory 
through nine grades, for females as well as males; since 1950 the 
literacy rate among adults has increased dramatically from below 20 
percent to about 74 percent today; the incidence of maternal mortality 
and infant mortality have been greatly reduced; access to health care 
has improved dramatically for all income groups and throughout the 
nation; the average life span has been increased for men and for women. 
Widely recognized and lauded family planning programs have addressed 
the very serious population issues Indonesia faces, and Indonesia has 
become self-sufficient in the production of rice. All of these 
achievements and others have improved in dramatic and tangible ways the 
lives of Indonesians from all economic strata and in all geographic 
locations. In East Timor for example just 10 percent of the population 
was literate in 1975, when the Portuguese pulled out. There were only 
50 schools and no colleges at that time. Today, East Timor has nearly 
600 elementary schools, 90 middle schools and 3 colleges. In 1975 East 
Timor had only two hospitals and 14 health clinics; today there are 10 
hospitals and 197 village health clinics. Interestingly, the number of 
Catholic churches has quadrupled since the Portuguese pulled out.
  Since 1967, a foundation for social stability has been constructed 
and continues to be strengthened. To be sure, Indonesia continues to 
face many difficult challenges. Poverty has been greatly reduced, but 
14 percent of the population--some 27 million people--still live in 
poverty. Many of these people live in remote areas and have few skills; 
it will not be easy to reverse their situation and solutions will be 
long term. Indonesia also continues to face the inherent difficulty of 
uniting over 200 different ethnic groups speaking some 300 languages 
and dialects in a nation of islands spread across over 3,000 miles of 
water. I understand the concerns in Indonesia about the potentially 
devastating impact of a return to instability, given the troubled 
history Indonesia had following independence in 1949, but I also 
believe the foundation which has been built over the past 25 years is 
stronger than many in Indonesia realize and that more openness will 
strengthen this foundation, not challenge it.

  As with all nations, including our own, for every step forward there 
have been occasional steps backward. The United States has and should 
continue to press for and encourage forward movement and should speak 
out when steps are taken backward. The comprehensive policy put forth 
by this Administration recognizes this. As Secretary Christopher put it 
in his June 29, 1994 letter to Chairman Leahy:

    
    
       This Administration is steadfastly pursuing the objective, 
     shared with Congress, of promoting an improved human rights 
     environment in East Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia. We are 
     trying to pursue our agenda aggressively, working with 
     Indonesians both inside and outside the Government, using our 
     assistance, information, and exchange programs to achieve 
     results. At the same time, we have raised our human rights 
     concerns at the highest levels in meetings with Indonesian 
     officials. As a direct expression of our concerns, our 
     current policy is to deny license requests for sales of small 
     and light arms and lethal crowd control items to Indonesia. 
     In accordance with U.S. law, we make these decisions on a 
     case-by-case basis, applying this general guidance.

  The State Department in conjunction with USAID has also tried to move 
aggressively to give support through our development assistance 
programs to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Indonesia, to 
support voices of pluralism and those who support change. My own view 
is that increased engagement in this manner will help promote the long 
term changes we all support and seek and in the end will lead to a more 
open, free and democratic system.
  The challenge we face is articulating and steadfastly implementing a 
comprehensive policy which will encourage change, and result in more 
openness and respect for human rights, while maintaining a close and 
cooperative relationship with a stable and friendly Indonesia.
  We cannot achieve this by poking Indonesia in the eye, engaging in 
highly public debates in which Indonesia feels humiliated and subject 
to disrespect. We will achieve this through firm, steady and quiet 
diplomacy in which Indonesia is treated with the respect and dignity 
which is her due as an independent nation.
  As I understand it, this amendment codifies part of our comprehensive 
policy toward Indonesia which was articulated in Secretary 
Christopher's letter of June 29, 1994. It will come as no surprise to 
my colleagues to learn that my preference is to have no statutory 
language. I do not think this is necessary, and I believe it could make 
it more difficult for the Administration to adjust to changed 
circumstances in the future. Nonetheless, since the Administration has 
apparently agreed to this language I will not take issue with it. I 
would point out however that this is only part of our policy and that 
my acquiescence is based on my belief that the Administration will 
continue to pursue a multifaceted policy which recognizes that our 
relationship with Indonesia is complex and based on many interests: 
security, economic, commercial and political.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
Secretary Christopher's letter be printed in full at the end of my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           Secretary of State,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you work on the FY 1995 Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations bill, we would like to provide you 
     with a clear statement of the Administration's policy towards 
     Indonesia and reiterate our objections to language which 
     would place restrictions on arms sales or transfers to that 
     country.
       This Administration is steadfastly pursuing the objective, 
     shared with Congress, of promoting an improved human rights 
     environment in East Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia. We are 
     trying to pursue our agenda aggressively, working with 
     Indonesians both inside and outside the Government, using our 
     assistance, information, and exchange programs to achieve 
     results. At the same time, we have raised our human rights 
     concerns at the highest levels in meetings with Indonesian 
     officials. As a direct expression of our concerns, our 
     current policy is to deny license requests for sales of small 
     and light arms and lethal crowd control items to Indonesia. 
     In accordance with U.S. law, we make these decisions on a 
     case-by-case basis, applying this general guidance.
       East Timor remains a high priority for our human rights 
     efforts in Indonesia. In 1993-94, there was considerably 
     greater access to East Timor on the part of international 
     groups such as the International Commission of Jurists, Human 
     Rights Watch, foreign and domestic journalists, 
     parliamentarians, and diplomats. We understand that the 
     International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is expanding 
     its on-the-ground presence in East Timor and has, with the 
     cooperation of government authorities, worked out 
     satisfactory access arrangements for visits to detainees. The 
     expanded USAID program includes projects designed to 
     strengthen indigenous NGOs active in agriculture, health, 
     vocational training, and microenterprise. On the security 
     front, the Indonesian Government has reduced its troop levels 
     in East Timor by two battalions. In East Timor, as well as 
     elsewhere in Indonesia, we have seen evidence of improved 
     military accountability and self-restraint under new military 
     leadership.
       We clearly recognize that more needs to be done. We 
     continue to push for a full accounting for those missing from 
     the 1991 shootings in East Timor and for reductions or 
     commutations of sentences given to civilian demonstrators. We 
     have also urged further reductions in troop levels and 
     efforts at reconciliation which take into account East 
     Timor's unique culture and history. But we do not see new 
     restrictions on sales of defense equipment warranted by any 
     deterioration in conditions; indeed we believe efforts to 
     support military reform and promote military professionalism, 
     discipline and accountability should be encouraged.
       IMET restoration would be an important tool to this end. We 
     therefore welcome the fact that the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee language for the Foreign Operations Bill for FY 
     1995 would remove the existing legislative prohibition 
     regarding IMET for Indonesia.
       The United States has important economic, commercial, 
     security, human rights, and political interests in Indonesia. 
     Our challenge is to develop a policy that advances all our 
     interests, that obtains positive results and reduces, to the 
     extent possible, unintended negative effects. In this regard, 
     the provision restricting military sales or transfers to 
     Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill is 
     unnecessary and inconsistent with our policy objectives in 
     Indonesia.
       Please be assured that we will continue to work 
     aggressively to promote better human rights observance 
     throughout Indonesia. We are committed to doing so in what we 
     believe is a comprehensive, effective, and results-oriented 
     manner, and will continue to keep in close contact with you 
     and other Members interested in these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                               Warren Christopher.


                           amendment no. 2287

 (Purpose: Regarding the extradition to the United States of Mohammad 
                             Ismail Abequa)

  Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2287 for Mr. Lautenberg.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:


   regarding the extradition to the united states of mohammad ismail 
                                 abequa

       Sec. --. (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) Mohammad Ismail Abequa is a naturalized United States 
     citizen who is alleged to have strangled his estranged wife, 
     Nihal Abequa, in Morris County, New Jersey on July 3, 1994;
       (2) Mohammad Ismail Abequa fled to Amman, Jordan on July 5, 
     1994, with the couple's two children Sami and Lisa, aged 3 
     and 6 years old, respectively;
       (3) New Jersey officials have confirmed that Mohammad 
     Ismail Abequa arrived in Amman on July 6, 1994, via an 
     international flight from London and that he had the two 
     children in his custody upon arrival in Jordan;
       (4) Mohammad Ismail Abequa reportedly has a record of wife 
     beating and child abuse while living in New Jersey, and the 
     children could be in danger;
       (5) the children have a close relative, Nihal's sister, 
     who, reportedly, will care for and nurture them in New 
     Jersey; and
       (6) the personal involvement of King Hussein of Jordan in 
     finding the children quickly could prevent their serious 
     injury by Abequa.
       (b) The Senate hereby expresses its concern both that 
     Mohammad Ismail Abequa be brought to justice and that the 
     safety of the two children held by Abequa be ensured.
       (c) It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) The Government of Jordan should use its resources to 
     apprehend and extradite Mohammad Ismail Abequa to the United 
     States where he will be afforded the due process of the laws 
     of the State of New Jersey; and
       (2) the appropriate officials of the Department of Justice 
     and the Department of State should work aggressively toward 
     that goal.

  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  Mr. Lautenberg. This Sense of the Senate amendment calls on King 
Hussein of Jordan to use the resources of the government of Jordan to 
apprehend and extradite Mohammad Ismail Abequa to the United States 
where he will be afforded the due process of the laws of the State of 
New Jersey.
  It also calls on the appropriate officials at the Justice Department 
and State Department to work aggressively toward that goal.
   Madam President, Mohammad Ismail Abequa is a naturalized U.S. 
Citizen who is believed to have murdered his estranged wife, Nihal 
Abequa, in Morris County, New Jersey on July 3, 1994. Mohammad Ismail 
Abequa fled to Amman, Jordan on July 5, 1994 with the couple's two 
children Sami and Lisa, aged 3 and 6 years old.
   New Jersey officials have confirmed that Mohammad Ismail Abequa 
arrived in Amman on July 6th via an international flight from London 
and that he had the two children in his custody upon arrival in Jordan.
  I am concerned both with bringing Mohammad Ismail Abequa to justice, 
and with the safety of the two children being held by Abequa.
  Mohammad Ismail Abequa reportedly has a record of wife beating and 
child abuse while living in New Jersey, and the children could be in 
danger. The children have a close relative, Nihal's sister, who, 
reportedly, will care for and nurture them in New Jersey.
  The direct involvement of the Government of Jordan in finding the 
children quickly could prevent their serious injury by Abequa. King 
Hussein has a critical role to play in ensuring that a man who is 
believed to have savagely murdered his wife will be brought to justice.
   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article 
that appeared in the Star Ledger be printed in the Record. I also ask 
unanimous consent that copies of a letter I, along with Representative 
Robert Torricelli, sent to King Hussein and the Attorney General Reno 
be printed in the Record.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     His Majesty Hussein I,
     King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Amman.
       Your Majesty: We request your personal involvement in the 
     apprehension and extradition to the United States of Mohammad 
     Ismail Abequa, a naturalized U.S. citizen who fled to Amman, 
     Jordan on July 5, 1994. Mohammad Abequa is believed to have 
     strangled his estranged wife, Nihal, in Morris County, New 
     Jersey on July 3d. Following the murder of his wife, Abequa 
     kidnapped the couple's two children Sami and Lisa, aged 3 and 
     6 years old.
       New Jersey officials have confirmed that Abequa arrived in 
     Amman on July 6th via an international flight from London. He 
     had the two children in his custody upon arrival in Jordan.
       Our immediate concern is the safety of the two children 
     being held by Abequa. He has record of wife beating and child 
     abuse while living in New Jersey, and they could be in 
     danger. Your personal involvement in finding the children 
     quickly could prevent their serious injury by Abequa. The 
     children have a close relative, Nihal's sister, who, we 
     understand, will care for and nurture them in New Jersey.
       We urge you to use the resources of the government of 
     Jordan to apprehend and extradite Abequa to the United 
     States. He is a U.S. citizen and a fugitive of U.S. justice. 
     The people of New Jersey are horrified by Nihal's brutal 
     murder, and with your assistance, will afford Abequa the due 
     process of the laws of the State of New Jersey.
       We make this direct appeal to you with the hope of 
     preventing further harm to innocent children and bringing to 
     justice a man who has been accused of savagely murdering his 
     wife. While our request is extraordinary, Your Majesty, we 
     are sure you appreciate the need for expeditious action.
           Sincerely,
     Robert G. Torricelli.
     Frank R. Lautenberg.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Janet: We are forwarding to you a copy of a letter we 
     sent to King Hussein of Jordan regarding the extradition to 
     the United States of Mohammad Ismail Abequa, a naturalized 
     U.S. citizen who fled to Amman, Jordan on July 5, 1994.
       Mr. Abequa is believed to have murdered his wife, Nihal 
     Abequa, in Morris County New Jersey on July 3, 1994. He fled 
     to Jordan with their two children.
       We understand that the Justice Department must request 
     extradition of Abequa through the State Department before 
     Jordanian officials will feel compelled to take official 
     action to seek and apprehend Abequa. We would ask that you 
     make such a request expeditiously. We appreciate your 
     cooperation.
           Sincerely,
     Robert G. Torricelli.
     Frank R. Lautenberg.

                            mideast manhunt

          (By Brian T. Murray, Kevin Coughlin and Joe Territo)

       The murder of a New Jersey woman landed in the court of 
     international diplomacy yesterday when authorities confirmed 
     that the prime suspect--her husband--flew to his homeland of 
     Jordan with their two children last week just hours before 
     detectives launched a nationwide manhunt.
       ``I believe (Jordan's) King Hussein will cooperate in the 
     case. I've met him many times and know him fairly well. He's 
     very responsible. He will see enormous ramifications if he 
     does not cooperate here,'' said Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-
     9th. Dist.), a member of the House Foreign Relations 
     Committee, who noted that there is no extradition treaty with 
     Jordan.
       The congressman was in touch with Morris County Prosecutor 
     Michael Murphy, whose office is trying to bring 45-year-old 
     Mohammad Ismail Abequa to justice in the July 3 strangulation 
     of his 40-year-old wife, Nihal (Nina). Because her body was 
     stuffed under a bed in a plastic bag, the crime went 
     undetected until after noon July 6, giving Abequa time to 
     flee the country, said Murphy.
       ``Our office is in the process of working with the State 
     Department and Interpol to secure his return to the United 
     States,'' said Murphy, who described the getaway as 
     ``extremely well-planned,'' But he added he was ``cautiously 
     optimistic'' that Jordan will help in returning Abequa and 
     his children.
       With his children in tow and using his Jordanian passport 
     to get them aboard, Abequa took a flight out of Nashville at 
     8 p.m. July 5 and landed in Gatwick Airport in Great Britain, 
     where he boarded another plan to Amsterdam. There he bought 
     three tickets to Amman, Jordan, where he is believed to have 
     arrived on the day police found his wife's body in her 
     Parsippany-Troy Hills apartment.
       Although Jordan and the United States do not have an 
     extradition treaty, Torricelli said Jordan has been 
     responsive on ``constituent problems'' in the past and would 
     not risk harming Jordanian-U.S. relations by harboring a 
     fugitive like Abequa. Additionally, the queen of Jordan, Noor 
     al Hussein, is American-born and was educated at Princeton 
     University.
       Police in Jordan are willing to cooperate and search for 
     suspects in heinous crimes committed in other countries, 
     according to Ayman Aamiry, second secretary of the Jordanian 
     Embassy in Washington, DC. ``We don't want a criminal on our 
     hands,'' he said.
       If the suspect is captured and cannot be extradited, he 
     could be tried in a Jordanian court, according to Aamiry.
       However, Murphy said he would not want to explore that 
     option until all efforts to return Abequa have been 
     exhausted.
       A trial in Jordan would require U.S. officials to issue a 
     formal summons, Aamiry explained. Arguments could be made in 
     person or via sworn affidavits, he added, noting that the 
     procedure is common in civil matters.
       Aamiry also said U.S. law enforcement authorities could 
     have Interpol, the international police agency, ask Jordanian 
     authorities to arrest Abequa. The U.S. Embassy in Amman could 
     press the issue with Jordan as well, he said.
       Abequa and his wife had been separated since December 1992 
     and she sued for divorce in April, accusing him of beating 
     her and the children, 6-year-old Lisa and 3-year-old Sami. 
     Abequa also threatened to abscond with the children, claiming 
     he did not want them raised in the United States, an 
     obsession which Murphy identified as one of the motives for 
     the killing.
       Nina Abequa was so scared of her abusive husband that she 
     thought of sneaking off to Arizona with her children last 
     winter. She even wanted to bring her mother and sister, 
     fearing they might be subject to reprisals if they remained 
     behind, according to Rena Moosa, an executive recruiter who 
     tried to find her an insurance job in Arizona.
       * * * covered by blankets. The air conditioning also was 
     left on, he said, which further prevented immediate detection 
     of the body.
       ``There were some signs of resistance . . . There were hand 
     marks around her neck, probably caused by her trying to 
     remove his hands from her neck,'' he said, referring to self-
     inflicted scratches.
       The fact that Abequa had a Jordanian passport made his 
     flight easier. While even young children who are U.S. 
     citizens generally are required to have passports to leave 
     the nation, that is not always the case when their parent 
     holds a foreign passport.
       Gary Sheaffer, spokesman for the U.S. State Department's 
     bureau of consular affairs, noted that in some Middle Eastern 
     nations, children under 12 are allowed to enter the country 
     as long as they are with a parent who has a passport. He also 
     pointed out that normally it is not very * * * bring her 
     mother and sister, fearing they might be subject to 
     reprisals if they remained behind, according to Rena 
     Moosa, an executive recruiter who tried to find her an 
     insurance job in Arizona.
       ``She said she wanted to go somewhere where he didn't know 
     where she was,'' said the recruiter, whose own experiences 
     with marital problems forged a long-distance friendship with 
     Abequa over the last three years.
       They last spoke by phone two or three days before Abequa's 
     death. At that time Abequa's Fourth of July holiday weekend 
     plans only included visiting with her family. Moosa said 
     there was no mention of a visit from her husband, which other 
     friends said happened the afternoon of July 3, the day the 
     woman disappeared.
       Moosa said before that fateful weekend, Nina Abequa's fears 
     had subsided. She had not heard from her husband in months 
     and no longer felt threatened by him, despite knowing that 
     the naturalized U.S. citizen had returned from Jordan to 
     Tennessee, where he occasionally lived. Nina Abequa expected 
     to start later this month in a better-paying job Moosa found 
     for her with an insurance firm in Hartford.
       ``She loved those kids. They were her whole life. 
     Everything revolved around them,'' said Moosa, who said she 
     has nightmares that Mohammad Abequa reiterated threats to 
     take the children to Jordan while Nina was in her death 
     throes. ``That would have made her berserk.''
       A gentle woman with a ``sweet little lilting voice,'' Nina 
     Abequa made an unfortunate joke in one of her last calls to 
     Moosa.
       ```I hope I'm not the next Nicole Simpson,''' Moosa quoted 
     Nina Abequa as saying with a slight laugh. ``I said, `Nina, 
     don't even say something like that!'''
       The children were last seen by a friend of Abequa's in 
     Nashville last week, when the murder suspect stopped to sell 
     his car there for $700 before making his flight out of the 
     country.
       ``The kids were fine,'' said Morris County Prosecutor's 
     Detective Gary Denamen, who interviewed the unidentified 
     friend. ``They were under the impression from their father 
     that they were going on a vacation or some kind of trip.''
       ``They were unaware that their mother was dead,'' Murphy 
     added.
       It was late on July 3 that Abequa made his arrangements to 
     fly out of Nashville toward Jordan. Police believe he got to 
     Tennessee via a domestic flight out of Newark either July 3 
     or July 4, and it was Nashville detectives who discovered 
     Saturday that Abequa and the children had left the country.
       ``The way the body was concealed gave him time to leave 
     this country,'' Murphy said, noting Nina Abequa was not found 
     until 12:20 p.m. July 6, after her sister telephoned police 
     reporting that she had been missing for days.
       The body was found by a police officer, and detectives 
     later found bloody materials in a dumpster near her 
     apartment, indicating Abequa had cleaned up the crime scene. 
     Murphy said the woman was bleeding from the mouth and nose 
     but that she had been partially concealed in a plastic bag 
     and * * * consular affairs, noted that in some Middle Eastern 
     nations, children under 12 are allowed to enter the country 
     as long as they are with a parent who has a passport. He also 
     pointed out that normally it is not very difficult for U.S. 
     citizens to get immigration documents once they arrive in the 
     Middle East.
       Sheaffer said he believes Abequa ``probably wouldn't have 
     any trouble talking his way through'' to get permission to 
     bring the children into the country with him.
       Getting Abequa returned to the U.S. may be difficult. But 
     getting the children back could pose an additional problem, 
     according to authorities, who noted that Abequa has an 
     extensive family in the homeland he frequently visited since 
     immigrating in 1985 and becoming a U.S. citizen in 1990.
       Murphy said the family of the murdered woman is concerned 
     about the children and whether they will have to go through 
     Jordanian courts to secure their return.
       ``Her sister is anxious to have the children returned to 
     her so that she can raise them,'' Murphy added.
       ``We're going to have to work delicately in the 
     international forum with Jordan . . . We're going to do 
     everything we can to get him back and hopefully the 
     children,'' he added.
       If Abequa is captured and tried by Jordanian authorities, 
     his ties to that country could give him the upper hand in a 
     murder trial, according to Christopher Taylor, an assistant 
     professor of religion and Middle Eastern studies at Drew 
     University in Madison.
       ``A lot of these things generally turn out to be which 
     family has more clout,'' said Taylor. Nihal Abequa has no 
     known family in Jordan.
       Taylor explained that sometimes in Middle Eastern courts, 
     the influence of a defendant's family can have as much 
     influence as evidence in court. He said the wealthy or 
     families with higher status have more influence on court 
     proceedings than poorer, blue-collar families.
       One way Abequa could attempt to get around murder charges 
     in a Middle Eastern courtroom would be to claim there were 
     ``extenuating circumstances,'' such as that his wife was an 
     adulteress, which could excuse murder under Islamic law, 
     Taylor said.
       Taylor added that diplomacy also could come into play. He 
     pointed out that since the Persian Gulf War, Jordan has been 
     trying to repair its damaged relations with the U.S., and 
     that could help American efforts to gain custody of Abequa.


                           amendment no. 2288

  Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2288.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:


                               Indonesia

       Sec.   . The United States should continue to refrain from 
     selling or licensing for export to the Government of 
     Indonesia defense articles such as small or light arms and 
     crowd control items until the Secretary of State determines 
     and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that there 
     has been significant progress made on human rights in East 
     Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia, including in such areas as:
       (1) complying with the recommendations in the United 
     Nations Special Rapporteur's January 1992 report and the 
     March 1993 recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights 
     Commission;
       (2) significantly reducing Indonesia's troop presence in 
     East Timor; and
       (3) participating constructively in the United Nations 
     Secretary General's efforts to resolve the status of East 
     Timor.

  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I wish to support the amendment offered by 
Senator Leahy on Indonesia and ask to be added as a cosponsor.
  His amendment is a welcome statement on the foreign aid bill, 
reiterating our policy of refusing to sell weapons to the Indonesian 
military that could be used to violate human rights.
  Just today, we have learned new reasons for the wisdom of this policy 
and the reason for our need to watch closely and to be deeply concerned 
about the human rights situation in Indonesia.
  Today at least 20 people were injured by the Indonesian military in 
East Timor as security forces used riot-sticks to break up a student 
demonstration. The demonstration followed several recent incidents in 
which Indonesian soldiers were accused of insulting two Catholic nuns 
and abusing the sacrament while ostensibly taking communion in a 
Catholic church.
  On Tuesday the United States officially denounced Indonesia's arrest 
of 42 students on a hunger strike in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. 
The students were protesting last month's ban of three Indonesian news 
magazines. The United States Embassy stated ``their detention while on 
the Legal Aid Foundation's private grounds makes the actions of the 
Indonesian authorities even more objectionable.''
  These arrests follow a pattern on recent government-sponsored 
violence against Indonesian labor and human rights activists.
  In May 1993, a 25-year-old labor activist was raped and killed in 
East Java. Evidence linked her murder to the military. Last March the 
body of another labor organizer was found floating in a river. Again 
evidence linked his murder to the military.
  Violence continues to be the main means by which the government 
control dissent. The most visible examples was in East Timor on 
November 21, 1991, when troops opened fire on a peaceful demonstrating 
protesting Indonesian occupation of East Timor. At least 100 and 
possibly as many as 250 killed. The number is imprecise because may 
disappeared during that massacre and remain unaccounted for.
  In the Aceh region of Indonesia, an estimated 2,000 civilians have 
been killed by the military between 1989 to 1993 during its counter-
insurgency campaign.
  As Amnesty International notes in its 1994 annual report, President 
Suharto maintains a centralized and authoritarian government that 
exercises ``strict and comprehensive controls on all aspects of social 
development and severe restrictions on civil and political rights.''
  This policy of strict control, I do not believe, can be long 
maintained in Indonesia. With its rapid economic growth, spreading 
middle-class, there are increasing demands within Indonesian society 
for change.
  We must demonstrate clearly that the United States supports the 
forces for democratic change in Indonesia and will not allow our 
economic, aid, or military interests with the Indonesian Government 
inhibit our support for such change.
  This amendment demonstrates that our priority in Indonesia remains 
promoting human rights and building democracy.


                indonesian cooperative marketing project

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I rise to bring to the attention of 
the managers of this bill a very important proposal, endorsed as a high 
priority by the U.S. Agency for International Development's [USAID] 
mission as well as the American Ambassador to Indonesia, to provide 
funding in the amount of $5 million over the 1995 to 1998 period under 
the Public Law 480 title II program to develop a coffee and fishing 
marketing cooperative system on East Timor, in Aceh and in the eastern 
Indonesian islands.
  While I understand that funding for the Public Law 480 program is 
provided in the Agriculture and related Agencies appropriations bill, I 
believe it is important to raise this issue during consideration of 
this bill which funds USAID. Under the Food for Peace Act, USAID has 
the responsibility for sorting out the priorities for those few 
projects which will receive support under title II. Without the strong 
support of USAID, this project may well be passed over since there are 
many other worthy projects competing for a limited amount of resources.
  The importance which our Jakarta USAID Mission accords this project 
was seen in the allocation of approximately $2 million in Development 
Assistance [DA] funds earlier this year to begin necessary planning and 
start up funds for it. Moreover, the Assistant Secretary of State for 
Legislative Affairs, Wendy Sherman, stated in a letter to me dated 
February 23, 1994, that our Jakarta USAID Mission and the United States 
Embassy in Jakarta both believe this project ``can potentially have a 
significant impact in East Timor and elsewhere. As you are aware, as 
part of our efforts to promote an improvement in the human rights 
situation in East Timor, we are working hard to expand USAID and USIS 
programs there; this project would be an excellent vehicle.''
  This project is designed to help raise the income of coffee and other 
farmers as well as fishermen on East Timor in particular. Roughly two-
thirds of the population of East Timor is engaged in farming; half of 
these farmers are engaged in coffee production. Although the quality of 
the coffee grown on Timor is excellent, particularly the TimTim 
arabicas which account for about 70 percent of Timor's coffee 
production, coffee prices received by these farmers have been 
characterized as extremely low, well below half the FOB levels similar 
grades and qualities receive in Sulawesi, Java, Flores, and Sumatra.
  Because of this history of low prices, production of coffee has 
decreased substantially and in too many cases, farmers are beginning to 
sell land, which will have a serious, adverse long-term impact on the 
economic prospect for this depressed area.
  To be sure, part of the low prices farmers on Timor have received was 
attributable to the collapse of the international coffee marketing 
agreement.
  But an even larger part is attributable to a lack of competition in 
marketing mechanisms.
  This project is designed to bring competition to the now virtual 
marketing monopoly by developing and supporting a cooperative for the 
procurement and marketing of coffee, as well as supporting value added 
processing of the coffee crop aimed at penetrating the niche gourmet 
and organic markets. The latter seems particularly promising since for 
many years coffee production on East Timor has been largely pesticide-
free.
  Highly successful projects in developing cooperatives have been 
undertaken with USAID's support on Java and elsewhere, and have created 
about 14,000 jobs. It is very likely that similar successes could take 
place on East Timor with USAID's support.
  It is urgent that the momentum begun with the initial funds provided 
by USAID be continued in fiscal year 1995 and beyond. Much effort has 
been made to gain approval and support for this project among farmers 
on East Timor and from the Government of Indonesia. Without a 
continuing commitment from the United States, however, this support 
could erode and we would lose the opportunity to make a significant and 
permanent improvement in the lives of many who live in East Timor.
  I am told this project will only be funded if it receives a high 
priority from USAID and from the State Department because the demands 
are so great for this program. Already, 3 months before the fiscal year 
1995 begins and allocations are made, USAID has some 60 applications 
for title II assistance on hand; undoubtedly, more will be filed 
between now and October. I urge those officials to review this 
proposal, and I hope they will look at it in the context of income 
levels and needs on East Timor which are in fact greater than those 
Indonesia-wide. I also hope that some consideration will be given to 
the need to strengthen NGOs in East Timor, which this project would do. 
If they concur with my assessment I hope they will communicate their 
support for it immediately to the team which is in the process of 
making the fiscal year 1995 Public Law 480 decisions.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Louisiana makes a good case for this 
project. Reviewing the information he has provided to me and to my 
staff, I believe this project has merit and I urge USAID to accord it 
serious consideration during the allocation decisions now being made 
under the Public Law 480, title II program.
  There are many pressing cases competing with this proposal, from Asia 
and from other regions around the world, far more than there are 
resources under the title II program to fund. In fact, I am told that 
approximately 60 applications totaling about $400 million are pending 
for the approximately $300 million which is available under this 
program, which was reauthorized in title XV of the 1990 Farm bill.
  During the daunting task the administration will have as it sorts 
through these proposals, many of which are compelling and equally 
worthy, I hope the administration will give some weight to the 
particular policy considerations involved in this proposal. A goal all 
of us have shared with respect to our policy vis-a-vis East Timor has 
been to improve the lives of the people. This project offers real 
potential in this respect.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I too have reviewed the information the Senator from 
Louisiana has provided to me and to my staff on this project, and am 
pleased to join my colleague from Vermont in urging the U.S. Agency for 
International Development to accord it a high priority. USAID will play 
a key role in deciding which of the many proposals for title II funds 
are approved, so it is equally appropriate that this colloquy occur on 
this bill.
  This project offers a positive approach to our policies affecting 
East Timor and one which would help in a concrete and immediate way a 
substantial part of the population. In addition to raising income, 
critically important in this very poor area, this proposal would also 
give skills needed by the people of East Timor to improve their 
economic situation. As the Senator from Vermont points out, these 
skills are transferable to other areas and hold out the promise of 
improving people's lives in other areas, too. This may be the most 
important and enduring part of the project and one which will reap 
benefits for many years. Therefore, I urge USAID to give some 
consideration to this feature of the proposal and hope it can be 
funded.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate very much the comments of my colleagues 
and hope this proposal will be given the support and priority it 
deserves this year.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, two weeks ago, late in the night, the 
Senate voted on a provision regarding Indonesia. The provision was, to 
my mind, very simple and straightforward. It simply said that any 
agreement to sell arms on the United States munitions list to Indonesia 
must include an agreement that our weapons would not be used in East 
Timor. It sent the signal which I think the Senate shares unanimously: 
Our weapons should not be used for the abuse of human rights.
  Indonesia has sustained a brutal military occupation of East Timor 
since 1975. Every human rights organization in the world has criticized 
Indonesia's human rights record, particularly in East Timor.
  The State Department has consistently reported human rights 
violations by Indonesia's military. In this year's report, the State 
Department acknowledges that ``largely cosmetic changes in the force 
structure resulted in minimal reductions in troop presence'' in East 
Timor. It also said:

       Extrajudicial arrests and detention, torture of those in 
     custody, and excessively violent techniques for dealing with 
     suspected criminals or perceived troublemakers continued in 
     many areas of Indonesia. Legal safeguards against arbitrary 
     arrest and detention are frequently ignored. The armed forces 
     continued to be responsible for the most serious human rights 
     abuses.

  We do not want to support human rights abuses in East Timor. We do 
not want U.S. weapons involved in massacres of peaceful protestors or 
interrogations of activists with views differing from the Indonesian 
armed forces. We do not want U.S. arms used to kill and torture the 
people of East Timor.
  The Senate, though, did not send that message 2 weeks ago. However, I 
do not think the Senate intended on sending the opposite message. That 
would be, quite bluntly, unconscionable. The amendment offered today 
corrects any misconception which may have been perceived, and assures 
the Indonesians that they do not have a carte blanche to use our 
weapons indiscriminately for human rights abuses in East Timor.
  The amendment offered today clarifies the sentiment in the Senate by 
codifying the U.S. position on human rights and arms sales to 
Indonesia. I have advocated a much more comprehensive arms ban, but by 
targetting small arms and crowd control weapons, the U.S. is taking a 
step toward separating itself from responsibility from human rights 
abuses in Indonesia and particularly East Timor. It is especially 
important that we have established a linkage between arms sales and 
human rights.
  The Indonesian occupation of East Timor has been a longstanding issue 
of international concern. Since 1975 thousands of Indonesian troops 
have occupied the island, restricting freedom of expression and 
association, and brutally punishing those who do not agree with the 
regime of occupation.
  Just 5 days after the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in December 
1975, the United Nations General Assembly called immediately for 
Indonesia to withdraw its armed forces and recognize the right of self-
determination for the people of East Timor.
  Since then the United Nations has adopted eight resolutions affirming 
human rights in East Timor--two calling on Jakarta to withdraw 
``without delay''--and the United States Congress has passed five 
resolutions condemning Indonesian actions in East Timor.
  In 1994, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. 
Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of 
Minorities passed resolutions about the continuing human rights abuses 
in East Timor and urging the Indonesian Government to allow access to 
East Timor by humanitarian and human rights organizations. The March 
resolution was the first time the U.S. supported such a resolution in 
the U.N.
  However, despite all these resolutions, the Government of Indonesia 
has blatantly disregarded the will of the international community. 
Instead, it has occupied East Timor with a brutal hand, resettling 
hundreds of thousands of East Timorese in camps in the late 1970's. The 
International Red Cross accuses the government of deliberately starving 
more than 100,000 East Timorese during the same period. According to 
both Amnesty International and the Indonesian-appointed Governor in 
East Timor, the conflict has taken 200,000 East Timorese lives--one 
third of the original population in East Timor--since 1975.
  Throughout the 1980's the Indonesian military controlled East 
Timorese villages and the movements of East Timorese residents. There 
were several waves of killings and disappearances.
  In the past 3 years, human rights groups have reported that the 
repression in East Timor has continued unabated. Torture of detainees 
remains a common practice. Human rights groups are barred from doing 
their work. Even Senators Boren and Pell were refused visas to East 
Timor in 1991.
  Human rights monitors list numerous cases of those hospitalized for 
such injuries by the armed forces as broken hands, pulled out 
fingernails, and gunshot wounds.

  The most public of the atrocities in East Timor was, of course, the 
Dili massacre on November 12, 1991. In front of reporters' cameras--on 
videotape we all saw repeated on the evening news--the Indonesian 
military opened fire on a peaceful demonstration for self-
determination, killing at least 100 East Timorese, and maybe as many as 
250. At least 66 people are still unaccounted for.
  The Indonesians have been unrepentant and irresponsible in 
administering justice in the massacre.
  Moreover, the comments by Indonesian military brass indicate their 
lack of remorse:
  General Syafei, military commander in East Timor, said, ``If 
something similar to the November 12 event were to happen under my 
leadership, the number of victims would probably be higher.''
  Geneal Herman Mantiri, regional commander, said, ``We don't regret 
anything. What happened was quite proper . . . they were opposing us . 
. . even yelling things against the government . . . that is why we 
took firm action.''
  General Try Sutrisno said, ``Such people must be shot and we will 
shoot them.'' Sutrisno is now vice president of Indonesia.
  The Governor of East Timor, Abilio Jose Osario Soares, said, ``As far 
as I'm concerned, I think far more should have died.''
  It is inconceivable, Mr. President, that I or any other citizen would 
be shot at for yelling things against the government. Yet peaceful 
demonstrators in East Timor were killed by the Government of Indonesia, 
and several of those who survived, are now sitting in prison for 
witnessing the crimes.
  In response to this massacre--and the travesty of justice which 
followed--the Congress cut off imet to Indonesia.
  At the present time, the UN Special Rapporteur is travelling to East 
Timor to learn more about the Dili massacre and its aftermath. 
Witnesses to Dili and other human rights activists are being rounded 
up, probably so they will not be able to testify to what they have seen 
and know.
  The repression in East Timor is non-stop. Just 4 days ago, a few 
Indonesian soldiers--who are Muslim--walked into a catholic church in 
East Timor, and insulted the parishers by pretending to take communion, 
by eating the wafers, spitting them out, and then stomping on a 
communion glass.
  This is an insult no one in this chamber can condone. But it gets 
even worse, Mr. President. When demonstrators protested the soldiers' 
defamation of their religion, the military opened fire, killing three 
and wounding dozens. Since, the military has cordoned off students and 
put barricades throughout Dili to stifle any further protest.
  Three people were killed by the Indonesian military simply for trying 
to protect the sanctity of their religious rituals. Just yesterday, Mr. 
President.
  This is how the Indonesian military operates in East Timor. I do not 
want the U.S. associated with any of these violations. Yet, in 
supporting the Indonesian military--by selling arms, by conducting 
joint military exercises, by training the military officers, by not 
prohibiting our weapons from being used in East Timor--we are 
tolerating, if not condoning, such terror. In reporting the story, one 
reporter even mentioned the Senate vote 2 weeks ago.
  Last year the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted an amendment 
to condition the sale of major weapons to Indonesia on improvements in 
the human rights situation. After numerous resolutions and diplomatic 
discussions, it was time to take substantive action to advocate human 
rights in East Timor. Though the bill never came to the Senate floor, 
it caused ripples throughout Washington and Jakarta.
  One result was that at the UN meetings in September, following 
committee action, the Indonesians finally responded to the talks with 
the Portuguese, and outlined a plan of action for East Timor.
  Another result was a policy review within the administration. It 
concluded that Indonesia is of great geostrategic and economic 
importance that Indonesia is of great geostrategic and economic 
importance to the US, but that its human rights record requires a tough 
stance. The administration adopted a policy of not selling light arms 
and crowd control weapons to Indonesia, which, according to assistant 
Secretary Winston Lord, was linked to human rights in East Timor. That 
is the position embodied in today's amendment.
  In light of this principled and substantive pressure, there has been 
some progress in East Timor. But in 1 year, it has of course been 
limited. And I want to stress limited, Mr. President. However, the 
small steps are more than we have ever gotten since 1975, and I think 
the facts bear out a strong argument for linkage. With so much further 
to go, now is hardly the time to abandon such a policy.

  Those who continue to dare to disagree in Indonesia are still 
suppressed, harassed, and as yesterday's events show, even subjected to 
murder. Just for example:
  The very week we struck language which would have prohibited the use 
of U.S. weapons in East Timor, the Indonesians shut down three 
influential journals by revoking their publication licenses. Two of the 
journals--Tempo and De-tik--had published unflattering articles of 
senior officials and close friends of President Suharto.
  The next day, there were demonstrations against the action. About 50 
people were kicked and beaten, about the same number were reportedly 
arrested. The Indonesians would not confirm that, but a Reuters 
journalist was there.
  The fact that journals have to be licensed by the government at all 
flies in the face of Article 28 of Indonesia's own constitution 
guaranteeing freedom of speech. All these restrictions have created an 
atmosphere of fear throughout every level of Indonesian society.
  I have also heard that there have been improvements in the 
accountability and the restraint of the military, but I have heard no 
evidence to that effect.
  When I questioned Assistant Secretary Winston Lord about the 
reduction in military presence in East Timor this spring, he could not 
confirm that there had been any troop withdrawals from East Timor. In 
fact, I have even been informed by authoritative sources with first 
hand experiences that uniformed soldiers in East Timor are merely being 
replaced by plainclothes soldiers. Is this restraint?
  This is yet another kind of repression which is very dangerous and 
creates a permeating atmosphere of fear and terror.
  Another illustration: As I mentioned earlier, as the military forces 
prepares for the visit of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on summary, 
arbitrary, and extrajudicial executions, witnesses to Dili are being 
rounded up so they will be unable to talk to the Special Rapporteur. 
They are questioned at length, refused the right to an attorney, and at 
risk of being tortured. Six prisoners being held in connection with the 
Dili massacre were moved to a prison in central Java in May, probably 
with the intent of keeping them from meeting the Special Rapporteur.
  Torture continues. According to Bishop Belo and other observers, 
prisoners are often tied up and dunked in tubs of water until they 
nearly drown. Prisoners are burned with cigarettes. Prisoners are 
subjected to mock executions. An article in the New York Times reports 
that during a torture session, an intelligence officer told an East 
Timorese prisoner, ``We only need your land. We don't need people like 
you Timorese.''
  Also very upsetting is that the military is targeting religious 
Catholics and clergy. In December 1993 the military captured several 
young Catholics in East Timor, beat them, tortured them, and forced 
them to confess to ``subversion.'' On January 4, 1994, Bishop Belo 
reports that military men were waiting for a student at the Pastoral 
Institute--Salvador Sarmento--where they beat, tortured, and kicked him 
until he almost died. They then forced his parents--who are 
illiterate--to declare that they had seen their son participate in 
subversive activity.
  The suppression extends even beyond the borders of Indonesia. In June 
there was to be a private conference on East Timor in Manila, in the 
Philippines, organized at the University of the Philippines. The 
conference was to be attended by Danielle Mitterand and the Nobel Peace 
Prize Laureate Mairead Maguire. The Indonesian Government went so far 
as to seek the cancellation of the conference in Manila.
  Threatening to cut off an economic relationship with the Philippines; 
to exact consequences in the Philippine peace talks with Muslim 
separatists; to impound Filipino fishing vessels in Indonesian waters, 
President Suharto succeeded in bullying and intimidating Manila into 
closing off the conference to any foreign attendants.
  But he piqued international concern over exactly what he has to hide.
  But East Timor is hardly the only battleground for the Indonesian 
armed forces.
  The armed forces have a dual role in the society, and it addresses 
all domestic rather than just international security concerns. Troops 
are deployed down to the village level to control society. The civil 
servants in the bureaucracy are soldiers in the armed forces. The 
military gets involved in labor disputes. In essence, the word of the 
military is law.
  Every Indonesian citizen is required to pledge allegiance to the 
state ideology, Pancasilia, critics or deviations from this code are 
punishable under the anti-subversion law. Almost every kind of dissent 
is considered ``subversive.''
  Being subversive subjects you to ``disappearance'', imprisonment, 
torture, or even extrajudicial execution.
  In addition, the workers rights issue in Indonesia is also quite 
important--especially as we intensify our economic relations with 
Indonesia.
  The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, has even acknowledged 
that better labor relations is in Indonesia' self-interest. Yet, in the 
last year, there has been an intensification of workers' strikes, and 
the Indonesian government has cracked down on independent labor groups. 
Demonstrations are often broken up, protestors detained and arrested, 
leaders imprisoned under bogus charges.
  In one case, in May 1993 a 25-year-old labor activist was tortured, 
raped, and killed in East Java. There was clear evidence that the 
murder was premeditated and that at least one Military officer who 
complied. After intense pressure, the Indonesia Government finally 
brought charges against nine company executives and even charged one 
army captain. The national human rights commission--which has no 
jurisdiction or statutory authority--was unable to charge the suspects 
and basically acquiesced in a sham trial. The military office was 
simply charged with ``failure to report a crime.''
  In East Timor, Bishop Belo reports that:

       Indonesian authorities have taken more than 400 young East 
     Timorese to Java with the promise of work. When they arrived 
     there, they were distributed amongst a number of factories 
     without keeping the initial agreement. There were changes of 
     factory and the young people did not receive a sufficient 
     salary. Many of the young East Timorese in Jakarta suffer 
     like slaves. Two of them died already. Others are being 
     persecuted and beaten. It is great injustice and suffering.

  The U.S. Trade Representative has also found that the military has 
been involved in labor issues and that the Indonesian Government has 
refused the freedom of association for Indonesian workers.
  Clearly, the issues of workers rights and human rights are connected.
  Finally, Indonesia has taken the lead in criticizing U.S. human 
rights policy. At the 1993 world conference on human rights in Vienna, 
Indonesia vocally opposed the U.S. position on the Universality of 
basic human rights. This is who we want to consider a close ally? An 
emerging democracy? Indonesia's positions and actions undermine what 
the president says he wants in a foreign policy, and counter everything 
we fought the cold war over.
  Mr. President, I would prefer to stop supplying the Indonesian 
military to carry out such control altogether. I am strongly supportive 
of a conditional ban on light arms because it is these weapons with the 
Indonesian military uses to control crowds and torture and massacre 
people in East Timor.
  They also are used in Indonesia proper to quell dissent. For example, 
in a number of incidents, peasants have been shot at at peaceful 
demonstration by American-supplied M-16s.
  A light arm ban is also consistent with the 1958 Mutual Defense 
Agreement between the United States and Indonesia on equipment, 
materials, and services, of 1958 which stipulates in section 2A:

       Any weapons or other military equipment or services 
     purchased by the government of Indonesia from the government 
     of the United States shall be used by the government of 
     Indonesia solely for legitimate national self-defense, and it 
     is self-evident that the government of Indonesia, as a member 
     of HTE United Nations Organization, interprets the term 
     ``legitimate national self-defense'' within the scope of the 
     United Nations Charter as excluding an act of aggression 
     against any other state.

  The U.N., in two Security Council resolutions (R. 384 in 1975 and R. 
389 in 1976) and eight General Assembly resolutions on the invasion of 
East Timor, concluded that Indonesia was in violation of the U.N. 
charter and was engaged in an act of aggression. In 1975, the State 
Department legal office reached the same conclusion and said the treaty 
was being violated.
  It is scandalous that the U.S. Government supplies the tools of 
repression to Indonesia.
  Since the 1991 massacre, the State Department has licensed more than 
250 military sales to Indonesia. They have licensed machine guns, riot 
control chemicals and gear, M-16 assault rifles, electronic components, 
ammunition, communications gear, and spare parts for attack planes, 
including F-16s. With every shipment, the U.S. is not only signalling 
its support for the Indonesian military, but also giving it the tools 
with which to oppress.
  While we should fully support Indonesia's right to legitimate self-
defense, we should not support its occupation of East Timor--not until 
the military accepts a U.N.-supervised referendum in which the Timorese 
would freely choose their own political status; not until the 
Indonesian military begins to withdraw its troops; not until the 
military improves its human rights record against its own people and 
against East Timor.
  Mr. President. I would like to make clear exactly what we are seeking 
here.
  The United Nations has never recognized that East Timor is part of 
Indonesia. The United States has said that a process of self-
determination has been violated. East Timor is a land in disputed 
status.
  The U.N. has developed a process to allow the people of East Timor to 
determine their fate, to choose their own government--by holding 
elections under international supervision. This is hardly a radical 
goal. Indeed, it is consistent with the goal of democracy we are 
promoting every where else.
  Most importantly, it is supported by the indigenous leadership in 
East Timor, including Bishop Belo.
  Indonesia has killed a third of the population in East Timor since 
its Bloody Annexation of the area. It has flagrantly disregarded 
international pressure and United Nations resolutions. Indonesia has 
not paid a price for its brutal and immoral occupation. But occupation, 
terror, and abuse of human rights are expensive.
  As Indonesia gains international prominence it is time to extract the 
cost of its occupation. If Indonesia wants our friendship, if it wants 
to be a leader on the world stage, it has to clean up its act. Until it 
does, U.S. policy should be decisive and principled. U.S. policy should 
support the goals we fostered throughout the cold war: Human rights and 
democracy. Indonesia should not be exempt from those goals.
  We can no longer facilitate or ignore the horror in East Timor and 
the other abuses carried out by the forces which are the Indonesian 
Government.


                           amendment no. 2292

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the provision of 
                       humanitarian aid to Haiti)

  Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2292 for Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Helms.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:


               policy regarding humanitarian aid to haiti

       Sec. 577. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development 
     should expedite approval of valid applications for emergency 
     medical evacuation flights out of Haiti and for humanitarian 
     aid flights to Haiti, where such aid consists of food, 
     medicine, or medical supplies, or spare parts or equipment 
     for the transportation or distribution of humanitarian aid by 
     nongovernmental or private voluntary organizations.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this amendment attempts to address an 
issue that a number of Senators have already mentioned today--providing 
aid to Haiti.
  As my colleagues know, the United Nations (in Security Council 
Resolution 917) and the United States (in a series of Executive Orders) 
have imposed a trade embargo on Haiti. I fully acknowledge that this 
embargo is intended to undermine the de facto regime in Haiti and to 
lead to the reestablishment of democracy in that country.
  Tragically, however, the embargo to further democracy is causing 
greater human suffering. And this suffering is growing despite the 
embargoes' exemption of humanitarian aid. Several senators have 
expressed their concerns about the flood of Haitian refugees that the 
United States is struggling to handle. We would do well to address the 
humanitarian conditions that are contributing to this refugee crisis.
  Hospitals and clinics in Haiti increasingly lack basic medicines. As 
a result, according to a recent Agency for International Development 
report, cases of malaria, diarrhea, and respiratory infections are 
rising.
  One reason might be that two organizations that fly supplies to 
missions in Haiti have flown one flight each since early May. Agape 
Airlines and Missionary Flights International used to fly several times 
a week. Twenty medical teams that had been planning to work in Haiti 
have had to cancel their flights to that beleaguered country, because 
they knew that flights to Haiti have been shut down. The AID report 
also states that 51 percent of Haiti's children are malnourished, 17 
percent of them severely so.
  One reason might be that private aid groups need spare parts to keep 
their trucks going. These trucks distribute and deliver the food that 
Haiti's children need. Despite the good intentions of the 
Administration and of the United Nation, the evidence is that the 
international embargoes are hurting the most defenseless and innocent 
of Haiti's people.
  I believe that the Senate must express its view on this crisis.
  My colleagues will recall that the international embargo exempts 
humanitarian aid shipments by sea. This is because we are in a position 
to intercept shipments by sea, inspect vessels trying to reach Haiti, 
and turn back cargo that violates the embargo.
  However, the United Nations has established a different policy for 
air shipments of humanitarian aid. Aid flights need approval by the UN 
sanctions committee in New York. This is the same committee that 
approves exemptions to the embargoes against Libya and Iraq.
  Under Resolution 917, members of the Security Council have 48 hours 
in which to object to a proposed waiver for a humanitarian flight to 
Haiti. If no country lodges an objection, the application is approved.
  However, private aid organizations tell me that the waiver approval 
process is taking more than 2 weeks.
  Why? It turns out that there is a cumbersome procedure here in 
Washington by which the Administration receives, processes, and 
forwards to the U.N. applications for waivers.
  Let me trace the steps that an application must take.
  Let's say a private aid group wants to fly humanitarian aid to Haiti. 
As I understand it, they apply to the Agency for International 
Development. AID forwards the application to the Treasury Department 
and the Sate Department. At Treasury, the Office of Foreign Assets 
Control looks the application over. Then at State, the Office of 
Sanctions Policy checks it out. If the application is okayed at this 
level, it goes to the International Organizations Bureau at State, 
which forwards it to our UN mission in New York, which gives the 
application to the UN Secretariat, which distributes the application to 
the 15 Security Council members and tells them that the 48-hour clock 
has begun to run.
  I think this process can be streamlined and hastened. My amendment 
doesn't dictate how--it simply urges that the Administration continue 
its efforts to hasten this approval process.
  I also hope that the United Nations and the Administration will work 
to hasten their approval of medical evacuation flights from Haiti. This 
issue is important because missionaries and humanitarian volunteers in 
Haiti have a right to know that if they become ill or suffer an 
accident, an air ambulance will quickly evacuate them to a hospital in 
the United States.
  The Administration and the U.N. have been working hard to hasten the 
approval of medical evacuation flights. The record approval time is now 
down to 6 hours. However, if I were a missionary in Haiti, I would want 
to be medivacked a lot faster than that.
  Let me also note that this amendment has the support of Catholic 
Relief Services, one of the private voluntary organizations that works 
so hard to provide humanitarian relief to Haiti. We need to support CRS 
and other such groups that are doing the Lord's work under very 
difficult circumstances. World Hunger Year, a group that has been 
concerned about Haitian hunger and poverty, hopes that the current 
embargo will not exacerbate a situation that is already tragic. And 
that's why World Hunger Year also supports this amendment.
  In summary, Madam President, this amendment expresses the sense of 
the Senate regarding efforts to relieve the humanitarian crisis in 
Haiti. It puts the Senate on record as supporting swift approval of 
applications to fly aid into Haiti.
  Madam President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 2296

  (Purpose: To amend the section on Assistance for the NIS to require 
     protection of biological diversity and environmental quality)

  Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2296 for Mr. Levin.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the New 
     Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to 
     Environment and Natural Resources) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961.


     promoting environmental quality in the new independent states

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, a major portion of this bill relates to 
United States Government-funded assistance to the New Independent 
States of what used to be the USSR. I would like to engage in a 
discussion with the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee to clarify that it is the intent of the 
Senate that the assistance programs we fund should not be implemented 
in ways that reduce biological diversity or environmental quality in 
the NIS. Is it the Chairman's belief that U.S. Government assistance to 
the NIS should not be allowed to degrade biodiversity or environmental 
quality?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, that is a critical aspect of our assistance. All 
Senators should be aware that the nations of the former Soviet Union 
have access to vast natural resources and unique environmental assets. 
As the United States and other nations of the world continue our 
efforts to help these countries develop sound market economies and 
stable democratic societies, we have an opportunity to do so in a way 
that protects and conserves the most vulnerable of these assets and 
promotes sustainable development of natural resources. Without a 
careful and comprehensive approach, the United States Government would 
be helping these nations to squander some of the most valuable assets 
they possess.
  Russia, for example, contains thousands of unique species found 
nowhere else in the world, many of which are highly endangered. The 
Russian Far East alone contains highly endangered Siberian tigers, Amur 
leopards, several eagle and crane species, sable, lynx, wild boar, 
Siberian musk deer, wild ginseng, and much more. Economic deregulation 
and rapid development projects seriously jeopardize this biodiversity.
  Protection of the environment and conservation of biological 
diversity are essential to long-term sustainable development in the 
NIS, just as they are throughout the world. Protecting the environment 
and biological diversity is necessary for long-term economic stability 
and public health, as well as for recreation, cultural and aesthetic 
values.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman. His Subcommittee and other Members 
of Congress have urged the Administration to provide more timely and 
targeted assistance to the NIS. I hope he will also agree we should 
assure that even rapidly designed projects meet the longer term goals 
of protecting biodiversity and promoting environmental conservation, 
which are priorities of both the U.S. Government and governments of 
these new States.
  The United States Government has recently underscored the importance 
of preserving the Earth's diverse plant and animal species in 
coordination with other nations by signing the Convention on Biological 
Diversity. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly 
on June 29 to recommend ratification of this treaty.
  The Clinton Administration has also reaffirmed its policy to make 
biodiversity conservation a high priority for all U.S. Government 
agencies and programs to promote sustainable development, most recently 
in a Presidential Decision Directive last May, and in the ``Statement 
of the White House Office on Environmental Policy,'' of May 27, 1994. 
Is the Chairman also aware that United States and Russia have been 
working at the highest levels to incorporate these goals into United 
States Government-funded assistance programs for the NIS?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, I am aware of these high-level efforts, but many of 
us remain concerned about how well those goals are being implemented at 
the project level.
  Throughout the meetings of the Commission on Environmental 
Cooperation chaired by Vice President Gore and Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin, the Russian Ministry of Environment has emphasized that 
its priority for United States aid is to support Russia's protected 
areas and maintain the country's biodiversity.
  Mr. LEVIN. I share the Chairman's concern, and that is why all U.S. 
Government assistance programs for the NIS, including those still being 
implemented with prior year funds, and those to be conceived in the 
future, should strive to protect biodiversity and enhance environmental 
quality, never the opposite.
  Does the Chairman believe that AID should make a special effort 
immediately to review its economic, technical and environmental 
assistance programs, especially in the Russian Far East but also 
throughout the NIS, to ensure that those programs promote protection of 
biological diversity, maintenance of unique ecosystems and sustainable 
development of forest products?
  Mr. LEAHY. I believe such an effort by AID is appropriate and timely.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman. I believe that AID should take 
several steps to ensure that projects do not degrade biodiversity, and 
I would recommend the following.
  Foreign assistance projects that may significantly affect 
biodiversity or the environment should proceed only after a rapid 
environmental assessment, to be prepared jointly with local specialist 
in the region. Assessments should address wildlife and plant diversity, 
as well as the project's effects on soil, water quality and carbon 
sequestration.
  AID should also assess the economic value of non-timber products, 
such as medicinal and edible plants, animals for fur and meat, local 
consumption needs and non-timber industries such as ecotourism. Where 
alternative forms of energy are available or feasible, U.S. assistance 
projects should seek to use or develop them.
  Does the distinguished Chairman believe this set of suggestions would 
be appropriate steps for AID to take to achieve the environmental goals 
that the Clinton Administration has established?
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator's suggestions are very good ones that AID 
would do well to implement in a concerted fashion, and I am sure that 
the Subcommittee would welcome a report back from AID on how they have 
taken these suggestions to heart.
  I appreciate the Senator raising these concerns, and his suggestions 
are entirely consistent with the bill before us. His questions serve 
the added purpose of underscoring just how strong an interest the 
Senate has in making sure our assistance to the NIS is done well. We 
need to incorporate environmental concerns into all U.S assistance 
programs for the NIS, not just projects specifically aimed at 
environmental protection there.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am very gratified at the Chairman's responses to my 
questions, and thank him for his leadership on these issues.


                           amendment No. 2298

  (Purpose: To enhance congressional review of efforts to facilitate 
            peace in the Middle East and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2298 for Mr. Specter and Mr. 
Shelby.
  The amendment is as follows:

       (a) On page 102, line 1, strike all that follows after 
     ``Gaza'' through the end of line 3 and insert a period after 
     ``Gaza''.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . (a) Additional Congressional Expectation.--Section 
     583(b)(5) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 
     ``(E) amending its National Covenant to eliminate all 
     references calling for the destruction of Israel.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, would that all moved this quickly. Were 
the rest of the bill to move this rapidly--and, incidentally, I commend 
and thank Senators on both sides of the aisle for their work in doing 
that--if the rest of the bill would move this rapidly, we could finish 
by about 11 o'clock tonight. If it does not, I suspect we are going to 
be here in the wee hours of the morning and for some long time 
tomorrow.
  I think Senators are trying to avoid--at least the Senators who 
cooperated in clearing these amendments are trying to avoid--the 
Dracula rule of legislation.
  For those who are new, of course, the Dracula rule is that rule of 
legislation found in an unpublished version of the Jefferson Manual 
which says that legislation, like Dracula, comes out after dark and 
that is when the votes come.
  Some of us would, of course, much prefer it be in the daylight hours. 
I have a lovely wife of 32 years, my dearest friend and truly the 
person I miss most when I have these late evenings. I wish I could be 
home with her. Others here have friends, family, or maybe even the joy 
of some time when they could do things other than this, and I am sure 
they would like that, too.
  So perhaps we could ease the Dracula rule a bit with the help of any 
Senators who might be here.
  We are very close to 5 minutes of 9. Madam President, I believe at 
that time, we then go to 5 minutes evenly divided on the Brown 
amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with 
the time evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________